JUDGMENT : By this Second Appeal the original defendants are challenging the concurrent judgments and decrees delivered by the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by one Shri. Ramji and his wife Bhimabai against the appellants for declaration and permanent injunction came to be decreed and they were restrained permanently from disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of Ramji and Bhimabai. It is not in dispute that the respondent died during the pendency of the suit. 2. The facts are not much in dispute and controversy revolves around interpretation and effect of a document Exh.55. The Second Appeal has been admitted on 06-04-1993 by noticing that question involved in this appeal is about construction of a document Exh.55. The present appellants claim that Exh.55 is a Gift deed as contemplated by Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act and the Courts below have concurrently found that it is a Will and therefore the testator Ramji [original plaintiff] could have revoked it at any point of time. 3. The plaintiffs approached the trial court with a grievance that they intended that during his life time and life time of his wife, the property covered in Exh.55 should remain in their ownership and possession and it was to pass on to the present appellants only after their death. They contended that both of them were carried to the office of the Sub-Registrar for preparation of such a document and a document like Exh.55 was then obtained from them. Plaintiffs stated that conduct of the original defendants in claiming exclusive ownership and efforts to obtain mutation during their life time were contrary to the document and contrary to their own intention. The present appellants defendants opposed the suit, but accepted ownership of the plaintiffs. They stated that at the time of filing of written statement, original plaintiffs were in possession. However, they denied rest of the allegations. They contended that there was a gift deed executed on 1-5-1971 by the plaintiffs and as per that gift deed entire property was to remain in possession of plaintiff, his wife till their death and thereafter only the defendants were to enter possession. They contended that ownership was fully transferred to them by the said document and they were therefore Owners of the said property. Trial court framed issues and found that the defendant could not prove that gift deed dated 11-05-1971 was irrevocable. They contended that ownership was fully transferred to them by the said document and they were therefore Owners of the said property. Trial court framed issues and found that the defendant could not prove that gift deed dated 11-05-1971 was irrevocable. It found that defendant had no right, title or interest to suit property. In view of its findings it declared that the defendants have no right, title or interest in suit property and granted permanent injunction with costs to the plaintiffs. In Regular Civil Appeal No.4821 1985 filed by the present appellants, the lower appellate court framed the following points and answered the same as under : "1. Whether Plaintiff Ramji Thakre wanted to bequeath or donate the suit property under document Exh.55 ? ... He wanted to bequeath suit property 2. Whether the suit is tenable in the present form? ... Yes 3. Whether the suit is within limitation? ... Yes. 4. What order? ... As per final order. " It found that document was Will and not Gift and therefore it dismissed the appeal. 4. In this background I have heard Advocate Shri. V. A. Kothale, for appellants. He contended that the evidence on record clearly demonstrated that Ramji had consulted others about execution of document and stamp for its execution was purchased at least 7 days in advance. He invites attention to evidence of P.W.2 - Shri. Raut, to state that P.W.2 had clearly stated that Ramji had intention to execute Gift deed in relation to the suit property. He argues that the Gift deed was to take effect after death of Ramji and his wife Bhimabai and as such interpretation of said document by courts below is erroneous. It is his further contention that Ramji expired after institution of the suit and therefore. he could not be cross-examined in relation to his intention or in relation to his desire in the matter, and as such the evidence of other witness to gather such intention is important. He states that by interpreting the document as a Will, the intention of deceased Ramji has been defeated. 5. The document that is scribed by an independent person and duly registered and exhibited as such at Exh.55, therefore falls for consideration before this court. Question is whether it is Gift or Will. The document is dated 11-05-1971 and also it is registered on the very same day. 5. The document that is scribed by an independent person and duly registered and exhibited as such at Exh.55, therefore falls for consideration before this court. Question is whether it is Gift or Will. The document is dated 11-05-1971 and also it is registered on the very same day. It is executed by Ramji and after formal clauses and description of property the material portion clearly reveals that Ramji wanted to gift the property. The document is itself given heading as "Gift Deed of Immovable property". There is no dispute about thumb impression of Ramji on it or about the attestation and as such the document meets the requirement of Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act. As It appears thumb impression is attested by two witnesses, it can also be treated as Will. Either way parties never disputed that there is any defect in execution of the document. 6. The portion of Exh.55 which falls for consideration reads: "Even immovable properties are accordingly gifted to you permanently, and during life time myself and my wife Bhimabai shall keep it in possession as owners and enjoy it accordingly. You should take possession of above estate after the death of both of us. We have totally ceased to be owners. Accordingly records will be corrected in your name (by me). If any body stakes any right, etc., the same shall be deemed to have been canceled by this Gift Deed and accordingly by treating it so, the Gift Deed is executed." The words "by me" are deliberately written in bracket, because in Marathi the subject i.e. person who has to get the entires corrected is not expressly mentioned, but from context it follows that subject is the executor himself. 7. It is therefore obvious that whatever Ramji intended has been mentioned by him in this document. Advocate Shri. Kothale, has contended that Ramji wanted devolution of the properties after death of Ramji and Bhimabai without any obstacle and hence he executed the Gift Deed. He contends that this desire and oral evidence on record supports that Ramji has executed only Gift deed and as such after execution of gift deed Ramji was not the owner and he could not have therefore filed suit of present nature. He contends that this desire and oral evidence on record supports that Ramji has executed only Gift deed and as such after execution of gift deed Ramji was not the owner and he could not have therefore filed suit of present nature. He also argues that as Ramji was aware of the document, Ramji ought to have filed suit within three years of 11-05-1971 and the suit filed in July, 1978 was therefore barred by limitation. 8. There is no dispute between the parties that Ramji wanted the properties to devolve only after his/wife's death. If this was the aim to be achieved by Ramji, question which arises is whether in document which has been executed by him vide Exh.55 there is anything to the contrary. Though the document in its first part mentions that it has been permanently gifted to appellants, as a part of same sentence it has been added by Ramji that the said estate will be in possession of he himself and his wife as owners during their life time. It is therefore apparent that Ramji wanted his ownership on said property to continue during his life time and also during life time of his wife. He has also stated that the suit property will be enjoyed by them as owners. It is expressly mentioned that the present appellants can take possession only after their death. Though after all this there is a sentence in present tense, declaring that their ownership has ceased. Ramji has added that accordingly he will get the entries corrected in the name of the appellant. It is therefore clear that Ramji never wanted to transfer the property immediately i.e. forthwith to the appellant. The appellants admit that Ramji and his wife were in possession even on the date of filing of the suit, but then they claimed ownership in themselves because of this document. It is obvious that Ramji did not intend to confer such ownership upon them during the life time. The intention of Ramji to confer ownership after death of he himself or his wife. which ever may occur later is apparent. There is no challenge to such disposition by Ramji before me or even before the lower courts. The contention of Advocate Shri. Kothale, that evidence led by attesting witnesses clearly reveal that Ramji wanted to execute gift deed and he understood the document as gift. which ever may occur later is apparent. There is no challenge to such disposition by Ramji before me or even before the lower courts. The contention of Advocate Shri. Kothale, that evidence led by attesting witnesses clearly reveal that Ramji wanted to execute gift deed and he understood the document as gift. is of no relevance at all because what ever Ramji has done is to be gathered only through registered document duly executed by him. Whether parties succeeded in correctly expressing the arrangement which they had reached is all together a different question and that question is not relevant for interpreting this document. Actually in present facts. there is nothing on record to show that Ramji wanted to do something else than what follows from Exh.55. I therefore. do not find anything wrong with the concurrent views reached by the courts below. 9. It is settled position that gift is transfer inter vivos and ownership stands transferred immediately. In case of immovable property the transfer of possession is not that relevant but acceptance of gift itself has to be shown. The pleadings or cause of action pointed by Ramji clearly shows that Ramji did not like the steps taken by the present appellants to obtain mutation of the suit property in their names as according to him the title to suit properties was to be transferred only after death of both of them. Even language in Exh.55 mentioned above clearly stipulates that title is to be transferred only after death of Ramji and his wife Bhimabai which ever may occur later. In view of this position. the courts below have correctly interpreted that document was not a document of gift but a Will deed. 10. It is apparent that Ramji during his life time itself opposed the efforts made by the present appellants and present appellants also acted contrary to the language of Exh.55. Advocate Shri. Kothale, has contended that the appellants being nephews of Ramji and Bhimabai are class-II heirs and even otherwise entitled to succeed. That question has not been raised for consideration either before the trial court or before the Appellate Court. as Ramji himself had filed suit and after Ramji his wife was very much alive. It is his widow Bhimabai, who is respondent before this court, thus the occasion to consider the question of intestate succession has not arisen. I therefore. That question has not been raised for consideration either before the trial court or before the Appellate Court. as Ramji himself had filed suit and after Ramji his wife was very much alive. It is his widow Bhimabai, who is respondent before this court, thus the occasion to consider the question of intestate succession has not arisen. I therefore. find that the substantial question of law as framed needs to be answered against the present appellants by holding that the courts below have correctly interpreted the document Exh.55 as Will. Appeal is therefore dismissed. No cost. Appeal dismissed.