JUDGMENT 1. The substantial question of law involved in this Second Appeal is: Whether the gift in favour of the Plaintiff was accepted and completed and if so, Whether the Revocation Deed executed by Kali is valid? 2. Ext.A2 is the gift deed/settlement deed dated 23.07.1990. It was admittedly executed by plaintiff’s mother Kali in favour of the plaintiff pertaining to the plaint schedule property admeasuring 6 cents with a residential house situated therein. Ext.A5 is the cancellation deed dated 10.04.1996 executed by Kali mentioned above, who at that time was aged 84 years. The plaintiff filed a suit to set aside Ext.A5. The trial court decreed the suit holding that Ext.A2 gift deed had taken effect and so Ext.A5 cancellation deed in invalid and inoperative. 3. The first defendant who is the brother of the plaintiff and the second defendant who is the nephew of the plaintiff challenged the judgment and decree of the trial court. The appellate court reversed the decree and judgment of the trial court and held that Ext.A5 cancellation deed is valid. Hence the suit was dismissed. 4. The construction of two documents Exts.A2 and A5 would to a great extent resolve the dispute. Since the execution of Ext. A2 was practically admitted by Kali, as admitted in Ext.A5, the question to be considered is whether Ext. A2 is a gift deed/ settlement deed or is it a will. The translation of the relevant portion of Ext. A2 reads as: “Since you are depending on me and because of my special love and affection towards you, and for your livelihood, I intend and desire to settle this property in your favour and as per this document, I have given possession of the property to you. But in the house situated in the said property, I will have right of residence along with you and you shall not interfere with my right of residence. With these terms, I have with my full volition decided and given possession of the property to you absolutely and hereafter you shall possess property, effect mutation, pay the tax and possess the house along with me till my death and thereafter by you only with absolute of alienation.” 5. With these terms, I have with my full volition decided and given possession of the property to you absolutely and hereafter you shall possess property, effect mutation, pay the tax and possess the house along with me till my death and thereafter by you only with absolute of alienation.” 5. It is also mentioned in Ext.A2 that at the time of execution of Ext.A2 prior title deed/ partition deed as per which the settler had obtained tight was handed over to the settlee. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the recitals in Ext.A5 cancellation deed would show that the execution of the documents was practically admitted. It is stated that “on or from the date of Ext. A5,” she intended or desired that plaintiff should not be in possession of the property. Even if it is accepted that it is only an improper Malayalam usage adopted in the document, still it can be seen that Ext. A2 contains recitals that the possession was given to the settlee and that she also parted with her absolute right over the property in favour of the plaintiff subject to her right of residence in the house situated in the property. It is so manifest that it can never be construed otherwise. Since the right of residence alone was retained by the settlor and there was divestiture of title to the property in favour of the settlee, the contention that Ext. A2 is to be construed only as a will cannot be accepted at all. The fact that right of residence was reserved in favour of the executed/settler is not a reason to hold that the document was to take effect only on the death of the donor/settler. 6. It was held by this court in Alvi V. Aminakutty and others- 1985 KLJ 22 thus: “it is settled law that where the deed of gift itself recited that the donor has given possession of the properties gifted to the done, such a recital is binding on the heirs of the donor. It is an admission binding on the donor and those claiming under him. Such a recital raised a rebuttable presumption and is ordinarily sufficient to hold that there was delivery of possession. It is an admission binding on the donor and those claiming under him. Such a recital raised a rebuttable presumption and is ordinarily sufficient to hold that there was delivery of possession. Therefore, the burden lies on those who allege or claim the contrary to prove affirmatively that in spite of the recitals in the gift deed to the effect that possession has been delivered over, in fact, the subject matter of the gift was not delivered over to the donees.” 7. The fact that possession had been given to the done also raises a presumption of acceptance. While determining the question as to acceptance. While determining the question as to whether delivery of possession would constitute acceptance of a gift or not, the relationship between the parties plays an important role. It was held by the Apex court in Asokan V. Lakshmikutty and others that even a silence may indicate as acceptance and that it is not necessary to prove any overt act in respect thereof as express acceptance is not necessary for completing the transaction of gift. It is true that in order to constitute a valid gift acceptance thereof is essential. But there may be various means to prove acceptance of a gift. The document may be handed over to the done which in a given situation also amounts to a valid acceptance. Here the prior title deeds in respect of the property was handed over to done. That was one such act of acceptance. The other overt act of acceptance was that the donee himself obtained the original gift deed from a Registrar’s office. The other fact is that he was residing in the house situated in the property in question. Therefore, the contention that there is no evidence of a acceptance of the gift is found to be bereft any merit. The very averment made in the gift deed Ext.A2 that absolute possession was handed over to the donee subject to the right of residence of the donor would sufficiently indicate proof of acceptance thereof by the donee. 8. Therefore, the contention that there is no evidence of a acceptance of the gift is found to be bereft any merit. The very averment made in the gift deed Ext.A2 that absolute possession was handed over to the donee subject to the right of residence of the donor would sufficiently indicate proof of acceptance thereof by the donee. 8. It was held by the Apex Court that when a registered document is executed, the executants are aware of the terms and nature of the document: a presumption arises in regard to the correctness thereof and that when such a presumption is raised coupled with the recital in regard to putting the donee in possession of the property the burden should be on the donor and not on the donee to prove the contrary. Therefore, the arguments vehemently advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent that since the plaintiff/respondent did not mount the witness box to give evidence regarding the acceptance of the gift, the lower appellate court was perfectly justified in reversing the decree of the trial Court, is devoid of any merit. 9. Gift is a gratuitous transfer and as such terms depicting mutuality or reciprocity cannot be present in a gift deed. There is no clause or stipulation in Ext. A2 deed entitling the settler to revoke the deed. The mutually and reciprocity can only be a condition that can be found in a will and not in a settlement or gift deed as per which there would be completed divestiture of title in favour of the donee. Therefore, irrevocability of the disposition made in the document in this case that Ext.A2 is only a Will. It would also demolish the case of the respondent that the settler was entitled to revoke or cancel the document. Ext. A5 is the deed of cancellation sought to be buttressed by projecting a plea of absence of evidence of acceptance. But that plea stands stultified by the very recital in Ext. A2 that possession was given to the settlee. That is further reinforced by the recital regarding handing over of possession of the prior title deeds to the setlee. It is further fortified by the fact that the plaintiff/settlee had obtained the original gift deed from the Sub Registrar’s Office. If that be so the contention that there is no evidence of acceptance of the gift deed is palpably unsound. It is further fortified by the fact that the plaintiff/settlee had obtained the original gift deed from the Sub Registrar’s Office. If that be so the contention that there is no evidence of acceptance of the gift deed is palpably unsound. 10. The main stay of the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent is based on the non examination of the plaintiff who claimed acceptance of the gift. It is true, had the plaintiff been examined, much argument on the evidence of acceptance could have been avoided. But the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that when there is evidence obtained in Ext. A2 itself as to the factum of acceptance, that cannot be a reason to hold against the plaintiff. Whether there was acceptance of the gift is actually a question of fact to be considered in the facts and circumstances obtained in this case. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision of this court in Vannathi Valappil Janaki and Others v. Puthiya Purayil Paru and others AIR 1986 Ker. 110 Where it was held: “ The statement in the cancellation deed reveals that the donors felt that it was due to a want of foresight and an imprudence on their part such a deed was executed by them, but their folly will not cloth them with the power of revocation of the gift. Bindley, C.J. In Allcard v. Skinner, (1887) 36 Ch D 145 observed:- ‘Courts of equity have never set aside gift on the ground of folly, imprudence or want of foresight on the part of the donors. The Courts have always repudiated any such jurisdiction.” 12. In Narayani Bhanumathi v. Lelitha Bai, P. Subramonian Potti, J. reported in 1973 KLT 961 , it was held that only slight evidence is sufficient for establish the factum of acceptance of a gift when the gift is not an onerous gift. It was also held that normally, when a person gift, one may expect the other to accept such a gift when once it comes to his knowledge, since normally, any person would be only too willing to promote his own interests. 13. As has been pointed out earlier, no evidence of any overt act is necessary to prove the factum of acceptance. 13. As has been pointed out earlier, no evidence of any overt act is necessary to prove the factum of acceptance. In fact, in the case on hand there is an overt act on the part of the plaintiff that the done himself obtained the original gift deed from the Sub Registrar’s Office. 14. A full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Lallu Singh v. Gur Narain (ILR 45 All. 115) held that immediate handing over of possession is not necessary for the validity of a gift. In that case it was observed. “On a constitution of Section 123 of the Transfer of property Act, 1882, that, even if delivery of possession was essential to the validity of a gift made by a Hindu prior to the passing of that Act, it is now no longer necessary. A Hindu lady, who is the full proprietor of immovable property, can be a registered document, duly singed and attested, validity make an immediate gift of it, although she reserves to herself the enjoyment of the usufruct or profits of a part of the property for her life time and without retaining any power of alienation over it” 15. The dictum laid down in that case was followed by this Court in Kelan v. Govindan – 1969 KLT 415 . Therefore, when it is proved that there was a valid gift and it was accepted by the done/ plaintiff it cannot be unilaterally revoked by the donor/plaintiff incorporating a self serving recital that the gift was not accepted, for the donor does not thereafter desire to have the gift deed to be valid and operative. Where the donor of the immovable property has handed over to the donee the property’s title deed and when the original gift deed also was taken by the done, there is evidence of acceptance and as such it has to be held that the gift complete leaving no power of revocation with the donor. 16. In Kelan’s case cited supra it was held: 17. It is pertinent to note that Ext. A2 is dated 23.07.1990. Ext.A5 cancellation deed was executed only on 10.04.1996 more than 5 12 years after the date of Ext. A2. The recital in Ext. A5 is that the said cancellation deed (Ext.A5) was executed since the donor then decided that the gift is not accepted and that it should be cancelled. A2 is dated 23.07.1990. Ext.A5 cancellation deed was executed only on 10.04.1996 more than 5 12 years after the date of Ext. A2. The recital in Ext. A5 is that the said cancellation deed (Ext.A5) was executed since the donor then decided that the gift is not accepted and that it should be cancelled. There was no condition or stipulation in Ext. A2 for revocation of the gift. The donor/executants of the gift deed has no right to unilaterally cancel the document. Therefore, Ext. A5 cancellation deed was rightly held by the trial court to be invalid, inoperative and inconsequential and as such the plaintiff was rightly granted a decree by the trial court. The lower appellate court went wrong in holding that the donor had reserved a right of possession and enjoyment of the property. What was reserved was only the right of residence. There was actually parting of possession and divestiture of right in favour of the donee. Therefore, the finding that there was no complete divestiture of title is unsustainable. In the light of the findings entered above, I hold that the lower appellate court was not justified in reversing the decree and judgment of the trial court. As the gift was accepted and complete it cannot be revoked by the donor. Cancellation can be had only through Court. “A valid gift accepted by the dones can, on no account, be revoked.” In the result, this Second Appeal is allowed. In reversal of the appellate decree and judgment, the decree and judgment passed by the trial court will stand restored. Ext. A5 cancellation deed stands set aside. No costs.