JUDGMENT SURINDER SARUP, J.-The suit of the plaintiff respondent was dismissed by the trial Court of Shri Inder Ram, Senior Sub-Judge, Kullu, vide judgment and decree dated 9-11-1994. His appeal, however, was accepted by the Court of Shri Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Additional District Judge, Kullu, vide judgment and decree dated 12-3-1997. After reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court, the appellate Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent to the effect that he is owner in possession of the suit property by way of revocation of the gift deed dated 15-10-1988. 2. The plaintiff-respondent filed suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the land comprised in Khasra No. 2371/498/1, measuring 1-7-0 Bighas out of Khata Khatauni No. 184/356 and 1/11 share of land comprised in Khasra No, 497-528, Khata Khatauni No. 345/583/584, situated in Phati and Kothi Kais, Tehsil and District Kullu, HP., as per Jamabandi for the year 1988-89, hereinafter referred to as "the suit land". It was pleaded by him that he was owner in possession of the suit land which was gifted by him in the year 1988 in favour of the defendant-appellant. As per terms and conditions in the gift deed, the defendant-appellant was to render all kinds of services to the plaintiff-respondent and in the event of such services being not rendered by the defendant-appellant, the gift deed was to be revoked automatically and the suit land was to be vested back to the plaintiff-respondent. 3. According to the plaintiff-respondent, after execution and registration of the gift deed aforementioned, the defendant-appellant rendered services to him only for two months and thereafter neglected the plaintiff-respondent. In this way, he is stated to have violated the terms and conditions of the gift deed. The plaintiff-respondent asked the defendant-appellant to hand over the possession of the suit land to him, but of no avail and in such circumstances, he filed civil suit No. 41/90 against the defendant-appellant. That suit was withdrawn on 13-8-1991 with liberty to the plaintiff respondent to file fresh suit on the same cause of action, subject to payment of Rs. 100/- as costs. Since the defendant-appellant failed to hand over the possession of the suit land, hence, the present suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondent. 4. That suit was withdrawn on 13-8-1991 with liberty to the plaintiff respondent to file fresh suit on the same cause of action, subject to payment of Rs. 100/- as costs. Since the defendant-appellant failed to hand over the possession of the suit land, hence, the present suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondent. 4. In the written statement, the defendant-appellant took up the preliminary objections that the suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff-respondent neither paid costs of Rs. 100/- to the defendant-appellant nor tendered the same in the Court, the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction, the plaintiff-respondent has no cause of action as he is neither the owner nor in possession of the suit land and that the plaintiff-respondent has no locus standi to file the present suit. 5. On merits, it was stated that execution of the gift deed dated 15-10-1988 in respect of the suit land is admitted by the defendant-appellant. It was also admitted that the suit land was gifted in lieu of the past and future services which he duly rendered to the plaintiff-respondent. The plea that he stopped rendering services to the plaintiff-respondent was denied and it was stated that the plaintiff-respondent by himself left the house of the defendant-appellant and started residing in the house of his daughter at village Bradha and when the defendant-appellant went there to give money and clothes to the plaintiff-respondent, he refused to accept the same on the pretext that he is happy in the house of his daughter and is no more interested in any services to be rendered by the defendant-appellant. It was also pleaded in the written statement that the defendant-appellant had been rendering services to the plaintiff-respondent in the past and even in future, he would always ready and willing to look after him properly by rendering ail kinds of services although the plaintiff-respondent refuses to accept his services. 6. in the written statement, it was also pleaded that the suit had been filed by the plaintiff-respondent in connivance with his daughter as he is interested to bequeath the suit property in favour of his daughter, it was denied by the defendant-appellant that he has violated any of the terms and conditions of the gift deed, as prayed for in the suit. 7. 7. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues : - (1) Whether the defendant has stopped the services of the plaintiff and thus contravened the conditions of the gift deed dated 15-10-1988, as alleged ? OPP. (2) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? O.P.D. (3) Whether the suit is properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction? O. P.P, (4) Relief. 8. All the issues were decided against the plaintiff-respondent thereby resulting in the dismissal of the suit. On appeal, the judgment and decree of the trial Court after having been reversed, has given rise to the present second appeal. 9. I have heard Shri Bhupinder Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant-defendant and Ms. Sunita Sharma, Vice Shri K.D. Sood, Advocate, for the respondent-plaintiff and I have examined the record. 10. The gift deed mark-X, dated 15-10-1988 is on record and its execution is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the suit land was gifted to the defendant-appellant by the plaintiff- respondent in lieu of the past and future services to be rendered by him. It is also not in dispute that in the event of such services being stopped to be rendered by the defendant-appellant, the gift deed was to be revoked automatically. 11. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff-respondent, besides himself, examined PW-2 Chain Ram and PW-3 Rekhu. Their testimony was discarded by the trial Court on the ground that they were residing at a distant place from the suit land, therefore, could not be said to have any knowledge regarding rendering services to the plaintiff-respondent. The findings of the trial Court was also to the effect that the plaintiff-respondent has himself refused to accept services being rendered by the defendant-appellant and started living with his daughter. On the other hand, the defendant-appellant was always ready and willing to render services as per the terms and conditions of the gift deed. 12. The learned lower Appellate Court has appraised the evidence of both the parties. He has believed that it was the defendant-appellant who has stopped rendering services to the plaintiff-respondent and the plaintiff-respondent has denied the suggestion in cross-examination that he refused to accept subsisting allowance being paid to him. He also denied the suggestion that the suit was filed on his daughters instigation. He has believed that it was the defendant-appellant who has stopped rendering services to the plaintiff-respondent and the plaintiff-respondent has denied the suggestion in cross-examination that he refused to accept subsisting allowance being paid to him. He also denied the suggestion that the suit was filed on his daughters instigation. PW-2 Chain Ram though the resident of different village has stated that he. is the regular visitor to the house of the plaintiff-respondent and during such visits, he has not seen the defendant-appellant baking after the plaintiff-respondent His statement has been believed by the learned lower Appellate Court and this is appreciation of evidence by him PW 3 Rekhu is also the resident of another village, He has also stated that he was the regular visitor to the house of the plaintiff-respondent and he has never seen the defendant-appellant by rendering services to the plaintiff-respondent. His testimony has also been believed by the learned lower Appellate Court which is appreciation of evidence. On the basis of the same, he has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff-respondent has proved his case that the suit land was gifted to the defendant-appellant on the condition that he would continue to render services to the plaintiff-respondent, but since he failed to do so, the gift deed automatically shall stands revoked as per the terms and conditions. 13. As against this evidence of the plaintiff-respondent, the defendant-appellant has examined himself and stated in cross-examination that in the month of Fagun, he had gone to the house of the plaintiff-respondent to give food articles and subsistence allowance in the presence of Ses Ram and Amar Nath. However, Ses Ram while appearing in the witness box as DW-2 has stated that the defendant-appellant had come for delivering food articles as well as subsistence allowance to the plaintiff-respondent, but he had refused to accept the same. He had not been in a position to point out exact date, time and month about delivery of such articles. To the similar effect is the statement of Amar Nath DW- 3. This evidence of the defendant-appellant has rightly been discarded as not worthy of credence by the learned lower Appellate Court. He has rightly come to the conclusion that the evidence of the defendant-appellant cannot be termed as sufficient, cogent and reliable and that there was no fault on the part of the plaintiff-respondent to refuse to accept services. 14. This evidence of the defendant-appellant has rightly been discarded as not worthy of credence by the learned lower Appellate Court. He has rightly come to the conclusion that the evidence of the defendant-appellant cannot be termed as sufficient, cogent and reliable and that there was no fault on the part of the plaintiff-respondent to refuse to accept services. 14. Shri Bhupinder Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant-defendant has cited the case of M. Venkatasubhaiah v. M. Subbamma and others, AIR (43) 1956 Andhra 195. This is on the proposition that under Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a gift subject to the condition that the donee should maintain the donor cannot be revoked under this Section for failure of the donee to maintain the donor for the reason that there is no agreement between the parties that the gift should be either suspended or revoked. However, careful perusal of this ruling indicates that under Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act, where there is such a condition in the gift deed for failure of the donee to maintain the donor, gift cannot be revoked because on the facts of that case, there was no agreement between the parties to the gift that it should either be revoked or suspended and this should depend on the will of the donor Therefore, this ruling is distinguishable on the facts. 15. Shri Bhupinder Gupta, has then cited a case of Smt. Gaurju v. Tara Chand, AIR 49 1962 Himachal Pradesh 4. This decision was rendered by the Judicial Commissioner, This ruling is also distinguishable on facts. 16. He has then cited Tila Bewa v. Mana Bewa, AIR (49) 1962 Orissa 130. The same ruling is also distinguishable on facts. 17. According to Shri Bhupinder Gupta, the learned lower Appellate Court has wrongly relied upon a ruling of the Apex Court reported as Philip John Plasket Thomas v. Commissioner of Income Tax, AIR (51) 1964 SC 587. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the above ruling helps the case of the plaintiff-respondent to the effect that it has been laid down therein that the conditional gift deed can be revoked on the breach of the terms and conditions thereto by either of the parties. Assuming, it was wrongly relied upon, no material prejudice is being caused to the appellant-defendant. Assuming, it was wrongly relied upon, no material prejudice is being caused to the appellant-defendant. Even otherwise also in inquiry, the appellant-defendant has no case inasmuch as the respondent-plaintiff is entitled to utilize the fruits of his own property in the manner he likes. It has also been argued by Shri Bhupinder Gupta that the suit being time-barred is liable to be dismissed. There is no merit in this argument as there was no such plea in the written statement nor any issue was framed regarding the same. Moreover, a perusal of the impugned judgment of the learned lower appellate Court indicates that no such objection regarding limitation was taken before it. For the same reason recorded hereinabove allowing this plea to be raised now, would result in prejudicing the case of the plaintiff-respondent. This cannot be done. 18. In fairness to Ms. Sunita Sharma, learned vice-counsel for the respondent-plaintiff, she has argued her case with great ability and persuasion. She has cited authorities which can be briefly noticed. 19. Jagat Singh Chilwal and another v. Dungar Singh, AIR (38) 1951 Allahabad 599. The facts were that one "D" executed a deed of gift in favour of one "J” which was registered. On the same day, the donee executed an unregistered deed of agreement by which it was agreed that the donee would maintain the donor till his death and that if he failed to do so the donor might revoke the deed of gift or in the alternative obtain maintenance allowance. It was held that the deed of gift and the agreement formed part of the same transaction and the transaction read as a whole fell within the purview of Sections 31 and 126 of the Transfer of Property Act. The omission to make the payment by the donee agreed upon would constitute the happening of the specified event mentioned in Section 126 and also the happening of the specified uncertain event mentioned in Section 31. The agreement as to the condition upon which the donor was given the right to revoke the deed of gift did not require registration. It was enough that the deed of gift was registered. The donor was, therefore, entitled to revoke the deed of gift on the donees failure to maintain him. 20. This ruling fully supports the case of the respondent-plaintiff and applies in the present case. 21. Ms. It was enough that the deed of gift was registered. The donor was, therefore, entitled to revoke the deed of gift on the donees failure to maintain him. 20. This ruling fully supports the case of the respondent-plaintiff and applies in the present case. 21. Ms. Sunita Sharma has then cited a Division Bench ruling of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported as M/s. Potti Swami and Brothers v. Rao Saheb D. Govindarajulu and others, AIR (47) 1960 Andhra Pradesh 605. It was held therein that under Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act whether a gift was given with a condition and that condition was accepted by the person, such person is not empowered to accept the gift with condition and the gift cannot be said to be unconditional. When the condition was not fulfilled, the donor is entitled to refund of amount of gift. 22. This ruling also helps the case of the respondent- plaintiff. Not only that, it has also been specifically held therein that a new plea with regard to point of limitation raised by the respondent for the first time in appeal, not having been raised earlier nor any issue to that point was framed, the same cannot be permitted to be raised more particularly in second appeal. This fortifies the view taken with regard to point of limitation by this Court. 23. The last ruling cited by Ms. Sunita Sharma is Balbhadar Singh v. Lakshmi Bai, AIR (17) 1930 Allahabad 669. It has been held therein that under Hindu Law, if a person makes a gift to another in expectation that the donee will do more work in consideration of the gift, it follows that if the donee failed to do that which it has conditioned he should do, then the gift is revocable. 24. This is exactly what has happened in the present case. Admittedly, the parties are governed by the Hindu Law, therefore, this ruling applies with full force in the present case. 25. For the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in this appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. However, in view of the issues involved, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. -