JUDGMENT M.M. Pareed Pillay, J. 1. O. S.273 of 1978 was filed by the appellant in S. A. 582 of 1987 for declaration of title and possession over the plaint schedule properties and also for injunction on the allegation that though he executed a gift deed in favour of the 5th defendant and his brother Sreedharan on 13-6-1960 it was intended only as a benami transaction and has not come into effect. First defendant is the wife of Sreedharan and defendants 2 to 4 are his children. 5th defendant is the sister of the appellant. Appellant revoked Ext. A1 gift deed by a cancellation deed dated 3-11-1978. Contention of the plaintiff was negatived by the Trial Court and the lower appellate Court and the Courts held that he is not entitled to get any declaration and injunction sought in the suit. 2. O. S.34 of 1979 was filed by the legal heirs of Sreedharan, brother of the appellant for partition to get their one half right in the properties. That suit was decreed by the Trial Court and it has been confirmed by the lower appellate Court. 3. The position of the parties as they stood in O.S. 273 of 1978 is followed in the discussion hereunder. Plaintiff mainly contended that though he executed Ext. A1 gift deed in favour of his brother Sreedharan and sister Janaki Gouri (5th defendant) the same was not accepted by the donees and as the gift deed was not acted upon he continued to be in possession of the properties and that the defendants do not have any manner of right in it. Plaintiff further contended that he executed the gift deed only to save the properties from his deserted wife who was bent upon instituting some suits against him. 5th defendant filed written statement supporting the plaintiff. As against the contention of the plaintiff, defendants 1 to 4 maintained that their predecessor Sreedharan and 5th defendant obtained possession of the properties and on Sreedharan's death on 10-2-1978 they as his legal heirs obtained right in the properties and that the 5th defendant has colluded with the plaintiff to defeat their rights 4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff pointed out that the Courts below failed to consider the evidence that the gift deed was not accepted by Sreedharan and 5th defendant and as the 5th defendant herself has taken up the stand that Ext. Learned counsel for the plaintiff pointed out that the Courts below failed to consider the evidence that the gift deed was not accepted by Sreedharan and 5th defendant and as the 5th defendant herself has taken up the stand that Ext. A1 gift deed was not acted upon plaintiff's suit ought to have been decreed and suit filed by defendants 1 to 4 ought to have been dismissed. Counsel submitted that in view of the lack of evidence of the acceptance of the gift it can never be held that possession of the properties passed on to the donees and so there cannot be any presumptive proof for Ext. A1 to have been acted upon and accepted by the donees. 5. Admittedly Ext. A1 was executed on 13-6-1960. In Ext. A1 it is stated that plaintiff's brother Sreedharan and the 5th defendant helped him financially. Specific mention is made in Ext. A1 with regard to the possession given to the donees. It is also mentioned that the prior documents with regard to the properties were handed over to the donees. Plaintiff's right to challenge the gift deed is expressly barred as per recitals in Ext. A1. Ext. A2 cancellation deed was executed more than 18 years after Ext. A1. Recitals in Ext. A2 cancellation deed do not agree with the averments in the plaint. 6. Contention of the plaintiff that possession of the properties did not pass on to the donees was not accepted by the Courts below. Ext. A8 (j) dated 25-10-1961 discloses that though the patta of the properties stands in the name of the plaintiff tax was paid by the 5th defendant and others. This document is immediately after Ext. A1. Ext. A8 (b) dated 2-3-1978 reveals that patta stands in the name of the 5th defendant and others and tax was paid by them. While Ext. A1 mentions patta numbers of properties as 2475, 2514 and 5259, Ext. A8 (b) mentions new patta cumbers as 3340, 1382 and 5831. This is conclusive evidence to hold that mutation was effected pursuant to Ext. A1 in favour of the donees. This is really a conclusive piece of evidence to hold that Ext. A1 was acted upon. 7. As Ext. A8 (b) mentions new patta cumbers as 3340, 1382 and 5831. This is conclusive evidence to hold that mutation was effected pursuant to Ext. A1 in favour of the donees. This is really a conclusive piece of evidence to hold that Ext. A1 was acted upon. 7. As Ext. A1 gift deed was executed by the plaintiff and as it does not contain any onerous condition which would have alerted the donees from having a second opinion about accepting the same, it is normal to hold that they have accepted it especially when it was to their own advantage. In view of mutation effected in the name of the donees pursuant to Ext. A1, contention of the plaintiff that Ext. A1 was not accepted and acted upon by them does not deserve acceptance. The legal position is that when a donor gifts a property to a donee and when it is not an onerous gift the normal presumption is in favour of the acceptance of the gift. In a particular case when there is some evidence to hold that the donee would not have accepted the gift the position would be different. But it is normal to assume that in all likelihood the donee has accepted the gift deed. The circumstances under which a gift may be revoked are specified under S.126 of the Transfer of Property Act. A girt deed which has been accepted and acted upon by the donees cannot be cancelled by the donor in a capricious manner. A transfer by gift is very much binding on the donor and donee and one it has coma into operation it is as good as any other assignment or transfer. Merely on the ground that donor's attitude towards the donee has undergone change after execution of the gift deed he cannot revoke it. In view of the concurrent findings of the Courts below that Ext. A1 gift deed was really accepted by the donees and that they obtained possession of the same, plaintiff cannot legally revoke it. As Ext. A2 cancellation deed has been executed 18 years after Ext. A1 gift deed and as there is evidence to hold that the donees have accepted the gift and mutation in the revenue records has been effected. A1 gift deed was really accepted by the donees and that they obtained possession of the same, plaintiff cannot legally revoke it. As Ext. A2 cancellation deed has been executed 18 years after Ext. A1 gift deed and as there is evidence to hold that the donees have accepted the gift and mutation in the revenue records has been effected. Plaintiff is not entitled to any reliefs in the suit filed by him though he has obtained the support of his sister (5th defendant) as against the lawful claims of the legal heirs of his brother Sreedharan, a codonee. 8. As against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, this Court cannot make a fresh reappraisal of the evidence to come to a different finding. Plaintiff's suit O.S. 273 of 1978 was rightly dismissed by the Courts below. Suit filed by defendants 1 to 4 (O.S. 34 of 1979) was rightly decreed by the Courts below. The judgments and decrees of the Courts below are confirmed. The second appeals are dismissed with costs.