Judgment : The second appeal has been preferred by the defendant. 2. The suit has been filed for declaration and injunction. .3. The case of the plaintiff was that on 30.5.1956 one Karuppiah Padayachi and his wife Maruthayee executed a settlement in favour of the son of Karuppiah Padayachi’s brother by name Kandaswamy. The defendant is Maruthayee’s brother’s son. On 30.5.1956, Karuppiah Padayachi, the original owner of the property, executed a settlement in favour of his wife Maruthayee. Subsequently, as three was no issue for them both of them executed a settlement on 12. 1974 in favour of Murugesan. The said settlement was not acted upon. On 4. 1980 Karupiah Padayachi and Maruthayee cancelled the settlement deed dated 12. 1974. In 1983, Karuppiah Padayachi died. On 7. 1983 Maruthayee sold the property to the plaintiff for Rs.3,800. Since the defendant attempted to interfere with the property the plaintiff has filed this suit. 4. In the written statement, the defendant contended that pursuant to the settlement dated 12. 1974, the defendant was in the enjoyment of the suit property. He has transferred the patta in his name. The cancellation deed is not valid. As per the settlement, they have lost their right. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff dated 7. 1983 is not valid. The plaintiff has stealthily removed the patta and the sale deed from the house of the defendant. The plaintiff has no right. Hence the suit has to be dismissed. 5. The trial court has dismissed the suit. 6. The lower appellate court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court and decreed the suit. Hence, the second appeal. 7. The main contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that after the settlement was ex- ecuted and after it has been accepted, there is no question of revocation. The revocation is invalid. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent vehemently contended that there was no delivery of possession and hence the document namely the settlement deed was not acted upon. Hence the revocation was valid. .9. In the settlement Ex.A-3 itself it is stated that that patta was transferred in the name of Murugesan and possession was handed over to him. Hence the revocation was valid. .9. In the settlement Ex.A-3 itself it is stated that that patta was transferred in the name of Murugesan and possession was handed over to him. It is also stated that as there was no legal heir to the executors and as the settlee happens to be the son of the brother-in-law of the first party, and as they had love and affection, the settlement has been executed. Ex.A-3 is the settlement deed. Ex.A.4 is the revocation deed. In Ex.A-4, reason given is that he was not providing maintenance. The gift is in favour of a minor, the settlors are close relations of the settlee. .10. The requirement under Sec. 123 of the Transfer of Property Act is that for the gift of immovable property, the transfer must be affected by a registered instrument. The gift deed must be attested by two witnesses. These two aspects are not disputed in this case. But, what is disputed is that there was no handing over of possession of property. Sec. 122 of the Transfer of Property Act is as follows: .“The transfer of certain existing movable or immovable property made voluntarily and without consideration by one person, called the donor, to another, called the donee, and accepted by or on behalf of the donee.” 11. A reading of the said section shows that the ingredients required for valid gift on a transfer of immovable property voluntarily without consideration and it must be accepted by and on behalf of the donee. The settlors themselves have indicated their in-tention to make the gift. In this case, the donee is a minor, As seen above, and patta was also transferred. The physical delivery of the property gifted is not contemplated. What is contemplated is the acceptance by donee or on behalf of the donee. In the case of minor, when a gift is made, the acceptance by the donee is implied. For example, when gift is made to a child or a baby, when the donors categorically convey their intention to make a gift, it would imply that they themselves act in both capacities, one in the capacity of donor and another in the capacity of donee. When they state about the transfer of patta and the delivery, it would mean that they have completed the gift by accepting the same on behalf of the donee. 12. When they state about the transfer of patta and the delivery, it would mean that they have completed the gift by accepting the same on behalf of the donee. 12. Therefore, when the gift is made in favour of the minor, the donors act on behalf of the donee also and the intention to make the gift itself can be construed to be their intention to accept the gift on behalf of the minor. Therefore, simply because there was no acceptance physically by the minor, a valid gift cannot be invalidated. 13. The learned counsel cited the following decisions: Kasi Ammal v. Vellai Gounder, (1980)2 M.L.J. 232 , Naramadeben Maganlal Thakker v. Pranjivandas Maganlal Thakker, (1997)2 S.C.C. 255 , Shimla Development Authority v. Santosh Sharma (Smt.). (1997)2 S.C.C. 636 . Marius Louis Peria v. Sanco Rane Charles, (1988)1 L.W. 183 . Kasi Ammal v. Vellai Gounder, (1980)2 M.L.J. 232 is the case which supports the appellant rather than the respondent. In the said case, the recitals in the gift deed itself have been construed to be acceptance of the gift and possession having been handed over to the donee. But in the case on hand, the gift is in favour of the minor. In such a case in my view the donors play a dual role as indicated above. Therefore in my view even if there is no physical delivery of possession of the property or the document to the minor the gift would be valid, if there is a categoricai assertion that the possession has been handed over to the donee. In the case Naramadeben Maganlal Thakkar v. Pranjivandas Maganlal Thakkar, (1997) 2 S.C.C. 255 , the conditional gift was executed. The gift was to take effect only after the death of the donor. Further the gift conferred only limited right upon the donee. The cancellation was consistent with the recitals in the gift. Therefore, the Apex Court has found that there was no valid gift in the said case. In the case Shimla Development Authority v. Santosh Sharma (Smt.), (1997)2 S.C.C. 636 , the donor retained both title and possession of the property with her. Therefore the gift was held to be invalid. The case Marius Louis Peria v. Sanco Rane Charles, (1988)1 L.W. 183 . does not help the contentions of the counsel for the respondent. In the case Shimla Development Authority v. Santosh Sharma (Smt.), (1997)2 S.C.C. 636 , the donor retained both title and possession of the property with her. Therefore the gift was held to be invalid. The case Marius Louis Peria v. Sanco Rane Charles, (1988)1 L.W. 183 . does not help the contentions of the counsel for the respondent. In the deed itself there was a condition that the gift was liable to be cancelled if the condition was not fulfilled. Taking advantage of the condition a suit was filed for cancellation and it was decreed . But the case in hand is entirely different. 14. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that the approach of the lower appellate court is wrong. Hence, the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court deserve to be set aside and accordingly they are set aside. 15. In result, the Second Appeal is allowed, and the suit is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.