Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 252 (HP)

Parveen Kumar v. Sarojni Devi

2014-03-24

RAJIV SHARMA

body2014
Judgment Rajiv Sharma, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31.12.2001, rendered by learned District Judge, Hamirpur, in Civil Appeal No.19 of 1993. 2. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff/appellant, Jai Nand, filed a suit for possession against the respondents/defendants (hereinafter referred to as the “defendants” for the sake of convenience). Jai Nand died during the pendency of the suit and his legal representatives, namely, Krishni Devi and Parveen Kumar, were brought on record. Krishni Devi also died during the pendency of the first appeal before the learned lower appellate court. According to the plaintiff, Jai Nand (since deceased), he was entered as owner comprising khata No.86 min, khatauni No.103 min, Khasra Nos.1867/1110, 1111, 1112 and 1502, situated in Tika Badehar, Tappa Mewa, Tehsil Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, as per jamabandi for the year 1981-82. Defendant No.1, Sarojni Devi, was married in Tika Kakar, which was at a distance of 3 kms from Badehar. The plaintiff fell ill during month of September 1986 and defendant No.1 started visiting him quite often and showed all concerns about well being of the plaintiff. The plaintiff and his wife were under gratitude of defendant No.1 for looking after them with love and care. Ultimately at the request of defendant No.1 that she would serve the plaintiff and his wife, the plaintiff was made to execute a gift deed for future services by defendant No.1 in her favour on 22.12.1986 vide Ext. DW1/A with respect to land measuring 11 Kanals 14 Marlas out of field Nos.1867/1110, 1111, 112 and 1502. According to the plaintiff, the gift deed was conditional in lieu of future services to be rendered by defendant No.1 and the same was revocable under the agriculture custom of the area. After execution of the gift deed, defendant No.1 served the plaintiff and his wife for some time and thereafter, she stopped rendering services to them. 3. The suit was contested by defendant No.1. According to her, gift deed was absolute and there was no right of revocation of the gift deed. She also pleaded that right to sue did not survive to the plaintiff Parveen Kumar after the death of Jai Nand. The suit was filed ‘benami’. According to her, after marriage, she settled with her husband at Village Badehar and was looking after Jai Nand. She also pleaded that right to sue did not survive to the plaintiff Parveen Kumar after the death of Jai Nand. The suit was filed ‘benami’. According to her, after marriage, she settled with her husband at Village Badehar and was looking after Jai Nand. She also provided basic necessities of life to him. She had spent huge amount for constructing a house consisting of three rooms and one cow shed at Village Badehar. She was living with Jai Nand. Jai and it was not conditional. 4. The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement filed by defendant No.1. 5. Learned trial court framed issues on 11.8.1988 and 29.11.1991. Learned trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 24.12.1992. Feeling aggrieved, defendant No.1 filed an appeal before the learned lower appellate court, who allowed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 31.12.2001. Hence, the present appeal. It was admitted on following substantial question of law on 22.5.2012:- “1. Whether the gift deed executed by Jai Nand Ext. DW1/A was a result of importunity and being a conditional gift and the conditions have not been complied with, the gift was liable to be revoked? 6. Mr. Rajnish K. Lall, learned Advocate, on the basis of substantial question of law framed, has vehemently argued that the gift deed Ext. DW1/A dated 22.12.1986 was result of importunity. According to him, gift deed was conditional and since the conditions have not been complied with, gift deed was liable to be revoked. 7. Mr. Neeraj Gupta, learned Advocate, has supported the impugned judgment dated 31.12.2001. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 9. PW1 Parveen Kumar, deposed that Jai Nand was his maternal grand father. He was his general power of attorney. Jai Nand was 85 years old. He was unable to walk. He was admitted in hospital. Sarojni Devi had not been rendering any services to Jai Nand for the last 1 ¾ years. She had strained relations with Jai Sarojni Devi rendered services to Jai Nand for about 6-7 months prior to gift deed and thereafter, she did not render any services. Parties to the suit are Brahmins by caste and are dependent on agriculture. They follow agricultural custom. She had strained relations with Jai Sarojni Devi rendered services to Jai Nand for about 6-7 months prior to gift deed and thereafter, she did not render any services. Parties to the suit are Brahmins by caste and are dependent on agriculture. They follow agricultural custom. According to him, as per custom, gift deed stands revoked if the services are not rendered to the donor. In cross-examination, he deposed that his father died in the year 1984. His mother name is Shakuntla. He denied that after marriage, Sarojni Devi and her husband were living at Badehar. According to him, children of Sarojni Devi were studying in schools at Badehar, Dhamrol and Paonta respectively. Jai Nand remained admitted in Hospital at Hamirpur for 13 days and prior to it, at Bhoranj for two days. He was ailing for the last 1 ½ months. He admitted that during this period, Sarojni Devi also looked after Jai Nand. He had spent Rs.3200/- on treatment of Jai Nand. He borrowed the money from one Paras Ram and Prakash Lata. No writing to this effect was executed. Sarojni Devi never refused to serve Jai Nand in his presence. However, he volunteered that Sarojni Devi was misbehaving with Jai Nand. He could not give exact date when Sarojni Devi assaulted Jai Nand. 10. PW2, Jamba Ram, deposed that he knew the parties. Jai Nand was eighty years old. He was ailing. He was admitted in the hospital. According to him, Parveen Kumar was looking after him. Sarojni Devi did not render any services to Jai Nand for the last two years. He volunteered that she served Jai Nand for few days and after grabbing the land, she did not serve him. According to him, if gift deed is made in lieu of services rendered, in default thereto, gift deed is revoked. In cross-examination, he admitted that Sarojni Devi deposed that Sarojni Devi was residing in new house. 11. PW3, Shanti Ram, deposed that Jai Nand used to remain sick. He was 80-85 years old. Parveen Kumar was serving him. Sarojni was residing at village Badehar for the last 2 ½ years. He had never seen Sarojni serving Jai Nand. In cross-examination, he deposed that Sarojni Devi had no house at Badehar. Sarojni was residing in the house of Jai Nand. 12. He was 80-85 years old. Parveen Kumar was serving him. Sarojni was residing at village Badehar for the last 2 ½ years. He had never seen Sarojni serving Jai Nand. In cross-examination, he deposed that Sarojni Devi had no house at Badehar. Sarojni was residing in the house of Jai Nand. 12. PW4, Krishni Devi, wife of Jai Nand, deposed that before execution of the gift deed, Sarojni Devi served her and Jai Nand. Thereafter she also served them for about 3-4 months. Thereafter, she started abusing them. According to her, Jai Nand had executed a will in her favour and Praveen. She admitted that Sarojni Devi had constructed a house at Badehar after execution of the gift deed about five years back. They had not lodged any complaint to the police. 13. PW5, Hari Chand Sharma, proved on record copy of pariwar register, Ext. PW5/A. 14. PW6, Padam Nabh, deposed that he performed last rites of Jai Nand at the instance of Parveen Kumar. 15. DW1, Sarojni Devi, deposed that Jai Nand was her father. He died three years back. After marriage, she along with her husband was living with Jai Nand at Badehar. Her husband was teacher. They were looking after Jai Nand. Jai Nand had executed gift deed, Ext.DW1/A in her favour. It was scribed by Petition Writer, Kishan Chand. The contents of gift deed were read over to Jai Nand, who after admitting the same to be correct, signed the gift deed. Debu Ram, Balbir and Purshotam were marginal witnesses to the gift deed. The gift deed was produced before the Tehsildar, identified her signature on endorsement Ext. DW1/B. Her father was in his senses. She served Jai Nand till his death. She also performed his last rites. Jai Nand had executed the gift deed of his own free volition. Jai Nand had never executed any will in favour of any person. In cross-examination, she denied that she misbehaved with Jai Nand. 16. DW2, Tulsi Ram, deposed that he was ward member of Gram Panchayat, Badehar. According to him, Sarojni along with her husband was residing at Badehar for the last about 22 years. All basic necessities of life were provided to Jai Nand by Sarojni and her husband. His last rites were performed by Sarojni. He was also got treated by Sarojni at Hamirpur. 17. According to him, Sarojni along with her husband was residing at Badehar for the last about 22 years. All basic necessities of life were provided to Jai Nand by Sarojni and her husband. His last rites were performed by Sarojni. He was also got treated by Sarojni at Hamirpur. 17. DW3 Kishan Chand, deposed that he scribed the gift deed, Ext. DW1/A at the instance of Jai Nand. The contents of gift deed were read over to Jai Nand, who after admitting the same to be correct signed the gift deed in the presence of witnesses. Jai Nand was in his senses. In cross-examination, he deposed that gift deed was scribed at 2 ½ P.M.. 18. DW4, Karam Singh, produced the record qua registration of the gift deed vide endorsement Ext. DW1/B before the Tehsildar Bhoranj. 19. DW5, Debu Ram, deposed that he knew the parties. He signed the gift deed as marginal witness. Contents of the gift deed were read over to Jai Nand, who after admitting the same to be correct, signed the gift deed. Sarojni Devi used to live with Jai Nand after marriage. She was looking after him. His last rites were also performed by Sarojni Devi. In cross-examination, he deposed that Parveen Kumar used to visit Jai Nand occasionally. 20. DW6, Watan Singh, deposed that he remained Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Badehar during 1972-1985. Sarojni and her husband were living at Badehar. She was looking after Jai Nand. Parveen Kumar used to reside at Kalmal. 21. DW7, Ramesh Chand, proved on record medical bills Ext. PW7/A to Ext. PW7/G. 22. DW8, Balbir deposed that he was marginal witness to gift deed, Ext. DW1/A. The gift deed was got executed by Jai Nand in favour of Sarojni Devi. The contents of the gift deed were read over to Jai Nand, who after admitting the same to be correct, signed the gift deed. Thereafter, he appeared before the Tehsildar, where the contents of the gift deed were also read over to Jai Nand, who after admitting the same to be correct, signed the gift deed before Tehsildar. 23. Now, the court will advert to whether gift deed, Ext. DW1/A executed by Jai Nand in favour of her younger daughter, Sarojni Devi, was a result of importunity or not. 24. 23. Now, the court will advert to whether gift deed, Ext. DW1/A executed by Jai Nand in favour of her younger daughter, Sarojni Devi, was a result of importunity or not. 24. PW1 Parveen Kumar deposed in examination in chief that Sarojni Devi rendered services to Jai Nand for about 6-7months prior to gift deed. The plaintiff has not led any evidence that Sarojni Devi ever misbehaved with Jai Nand. He also admitted that Jai Nand remained admitted in the hospital and at that time, he was looked after by Sarojni Devi. He has not led any evidence that he had spent a sum of Rs.3200/- towards treatment of Jai Nand. In fact, it has come in the evidence that he was unemployed. PW2 Jamba Ram also deposed that Sarojni was harvesting crop and cutting grass from the suit land. He also admitted that Sarojni Devi was residing in new house at Badehar. PW3 Shanti Ram also deposed that Sarojni Devi was living at Badehar for the last 2 ½ deed, Ext. DW1/A, Sarojni Devi was looking after Jai Nand. She also rendered services for about 3-4 months after execution of the gift deed. She also admitted that Sarojni Devi had constructed a house after execution of the gift deed, five years back. DW1, Sarojni deposed that she was residing at Badehar with her husband after marriage. Her husband was supporting her father, Jai Nand. He also used to send money by money orders. According to her, gift deed, Ext. DW1/A was scribed by Kishan Chand, Petition Writer. Contents of the gift deed were read over to Jai Nand, who after admitting and understanding the same to be correct, signed the gift deed. According to her, she performed last rites of Jai Nand. DW2 Tulsi Ram, who was ward member of Gram Panchayat, Badehar, deposed that Sarojni Devi and her husband were residing at Badehar for the last about 22 years. All basic necessities of life were provided to Jai Nand by Sarojni Devi and her husband. DW3, Kishan Chand is scribe of gift deed, Ext. DW1/A. DW4, Karam Singh, has proved registration of gift deed, Ext. DW1/A before Tehsildar Bhoranj. DW5, Debu Ram was one of the marginal witnesses to the gift deed, Ext. DW1/A. DW6, Watan Singh, who happened to be Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Badehar during 1972-1985, testified that Sarojni and her husband were residing at Badehar. DW1/A. DW4, Karam Singh, has proved registration of gift deed, Ext. DW1/A before Tehsildar Bhoranj. DW5, Debu Ram was one of the marginal witnesses to the gift deed, Ext. DW1/A. DW6, Watan Singh, who happened to be Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Badehar during 1972-1985, testified that Sarojni and her husband were residing at Badehar. DW8, Balbir Singh, was also one of the marginal witnesses to the gift deed, Ext, DW1/A. 25. The expression “importunity” has been defined in Advanced Law Lexicon (The Encyclopaedic Law Dictionary with Legal Maxims, Latin Terms and Words & Phrases) 3rd edition, Volume 2, D-1, 2005, as under:- “Importunity” (to invalidate a Will), “in its correct legal acceptation, must be in such a degree as to take away importunity as he is too weak to resist; such as will render the act no longer the act of the deceased; not the free act of a capable testator.” 26. In view of the overwhelming evidence led by the defendant, Sarojni Devi, it cannot be said that the gift deed, Ext. DW1/A executed in her favour by her father Jai Nand was a result of importunity. The defendant was serving her father, Jai Nand, prior to and after execution of the gift deed, Ext. DW1/A. It is clear from recital of gift deed Ext. DW1/A that it was not conditional. The gift deed was absolute. Gift deed has been duly executed. Jai Nand was not under the influence of Sarojni Devi, as argued by Mr. Rajnish K. Lall, learned Advocate. Since the gift deed was not conditional, there was no question of same being revocable. The possession of the disputed land was also handed over to defendant Sarojni Devi. The gift deed was outcome of love and affection towards younger daughter of late Jai Nand. Gift deed, Ext. DW1/A was not based upon fraud, undue influence or misrepresentation. 27. The learned Single Judge in Subramanian Asari and another Vs. The possession of the disputed land was also handed over to defendant Sarojni Devi. The gift deed was outcome of love and affection towards younger daughter of late Jai Nand. Gift deed, Ext. DW1/A was not based upon fraud, undue influence or misrepresentation. 27. The learned Single Judge in Subramanian Asari and another Vs. Kanni Ammal Velamma, A.I.R. 1953 T.C. has held that to attract Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act, the conditions to be satisfied are: (1) that the donor and the donee must have agreed that the gift shall be suspended or revoked on the happening of a specified event; (2) such event must be one which does not depend on the will of the donor; (3) that the donor and the donee must have agreed to the condition at the time of accepting the gift and (4) that the condition should not be illegal or immoral and should not be repugnant to the estate created under the gift. The learned Single Judge has held as under: “2. It is not disputed that if an absolute and indefeasible estate was created in favour of the donee under Ex. II, the sole heir to succeed to that estate on the death of the donee is the plaintiff. But it is argued on behalf of the appellants that the documents read as a whole will show that only a life estate was intended to be created in favour of the done. This contention does not gain any support from the clear and definite expressions used in Ex.II. The donor has unequivocally stated in the document that he is transferring all his right over the property to the donee and that she is being put in possession of the property forthwith. It is also stated that from the date of the gift the donee is to enjoy the property for ever with absolute powers to deal with the same and that she is to obtain Pattah for the property in her own name and to pay the tax due in respect of the property. No rights of any kind have been reserved in favour of the donor. Thus there is no scope for contending that only a life estate was created in favour of the done. On the other hand, it is clear that the demise under Ex. II was absolute. No rights of any kind have been reserved in favour of the donor. Thus there is no scope for contending that only a life estate was created in favour of the done. On the other hand, it is clear that the demise under Ex. II was absolute. The gift was accepted by the donee and she obtained Pattah for the property and continued to pay the tax in her own name. Reference to these facts is made in the hypothecation bond Ex. I to which the donor was also a party and as such it is clear that the gift came into effect. All the same it is seen from the gift deed Ex. II that after conveying the property absolutely to the done, the donor has inserted a clause in the document intending to regulate the devolution of the property on the death of the done. That clause is to the effect that on the death of the done, the property shall not devolve on any of her heir but that it is to revert back to the donor himself. It is argued on behalf of the appellants that this provision amounts to a condition subsequent and that a demise subject to such a condition can be validly made. Section 126, Transfer of Property Act, is relied on in support of this contention. That section lays down that “the donor and the donee may agree that on the happening of any specified event which does not depend on the will of the donor, a gift shall be suspended or revoked.” In order to attract this provision, the conditions to be satisfied are: (1) that the donor and the donee must have agreed that the gift shall be suspended or revoked on the happening of a specified event, (2) such event must be one which does not depend on the will of the donor, (3) that the donor and the donee must have agreed to the condition at the time of accepting the gift and (4) that the condition to the estate created under the gift.” 28. The learned Single Judge in M. Venkatasubbaiah Vs. M. Subbamma and others, AIR 1956 Andhra 195 has held that gift cannot be revoked for neglecting to maintain donor under Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act. The learned Single Judge has held as under: “9. The learned Single Judge in M. Venkatasubbaiah Vs. M. Subbamma and others, AIR 1956 Andhra 195 has held that gift cannot be revoked for neglecting to maintain donor under Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act. The learned Single Judge has held as under: “9. The present case cannot be brought within the ambit of the section firstly for the reason that there is no agreement between the parties that the gift should be either suspended or revoked; and secondly this should not depend on the will of the donor. Again, the failure of the donee to maintain the donor as undertaken by him in the document is not a contingency which could defeat the gift under Ex. A-4. All that could be said is that the default of the donee in that behalf amounts to want of consideration of a document of gift for failure of consideration. If the donee does not maintain the donor as agreed to by him, the latter could take proper steps to recover maintenance etc. It is not open to a settler to revoke a settlement at his will and pleasure and he has to get it set aside in a Court of law by putting forward such pleas as bear on the invalidity of gift deed.” In the instant case also the gift was unconditional. 29. In Gian Singh Vs. Smt. Basanti, 1969 Vol. 71, Punjab Law Reporter 9, the learned Single Judge has discussed the entire gamut of revocation of gift deed under the customary law of Tehsil Hamirpur of Kangra District as under: “4. Both the learned lower Courts, however, have held that the gift was revocable because of the Customary Law. The Customary Law of Hamirpur Tehsil as to the revocation of the gifts is contained in Exhibit D 3. The answer to question No. 94 given in Exhibit D 3, which is a copy of the “Rwaz-i-Am” of the village Bhabour, Tehsil Hamirpur of Kangra District. This is the specific particular record of the village with the custom of which we are concerned. Question No. 94 asks in what circumstances a gift is revocable, and the donor and the donee are relations. The answer given is that the gift is not revocable in any circumstances. Then certain specific instances are mentioned which are not, however, very illuminating. Question No. 94 asks in what circumstances a gift is revocable, and the donor and the donee are relations. The answer given is that the gift is not revocable in any circumstances. Then certain specific instances are mentioned which are not, however, very illuminating. In certain circumstances the gift became revocable which in others it was held not to be recovable. It is difficult to reconcile these instances inasmuch as the terms of the gift deed or the gift in each case are not mentioned. The only way to reconcile these instances is to presume that wherever the right of revocation had been reserved in the gift deed or where ever the gift deed expressly stated the condition subsequent on which the interest created by the gift was to cease, the gift was said to be revocable. When there was no such condition subsequent stated in the gift deed, the gift deed was held not to be revocable. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent, however, brought to my notice that the answer given to question No. 94 in Middleton’s Customary Law of Kangra District is different. The answer therein is that the conditional gifts, e.g., in return for services, are revocable if the conditions are not fulfilled, otherwise gifts are not revocable. He also relied upon the observations in Mt. Aishan Bibi and others V. Allah Ditta and others, that when the original vernacular version and the English version differed slightly, the English version should be preferred on the ground that it is the final draft. The observation was made by Hilton, J. The learned counsel for the appellant on the other hand, contended that Middleton’s book was a digest for the whole of the District of Kangra. It was therefore a more general authority while Exhibit D-3 was the particular authority for the village Bhabour of Tehsil Hamirpur with which alone we are concerned here. To me, it seems, that there is no real difference between the vernacular and the English versions if we consider all the instances given in both the versions. Even the English version say that only the conditional gifts are revocable if the conditions are not fulfilled. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent further relied upon three judgments upholding the custom of revocability viz., (1) R.S.A. No. 242 of 1967, Fateh Singh Vs. Even the English version say that only the conditional gifts are revocable if the conditions are not fulfilled. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent further relied upon three judgments upholding the custom of revocability viz., (1) R.S.A. No. 242 of 1967, Fateh Singh Vs. Bidi Singh, decided on 5th April, 1968, by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice, (2) Civil Appeal No. 189 of 1958, Hari Chand Vs. Lachman, decided on 11th July, 1959, by the District Judge, Hoshiarpur and (3) Civil Appeal No. 27/58/202/4 of 1959. Hans Raj V. Parsannu, decided on 23rd January, 1959, by the District Judge, Kangra. With great respect, the terms of the gift deed all the above three cases. In the present case, the consequence of the non-performance of the services are expressly stated to be the grant of proper maintenance by the donee to the donor. This circumstance was not present in any of the above cases. The above judgments are therefore distinguishable at any rate on this ground. 7. A terminable contract is one which containes a stipulation that in a certain event it may be put an end to (Collett’s Specific Relief Act, page 274). Such a contract is generally one which may be put an end to by one or both the parties upon certain terms without a change in the circumstances or upon the happening of a certain event or on the default by one of the parties in the performance of his part of the contract or where the contract reserves to one or both of the contracting parties a power in certain specified circumstances to rescind the contract (Fry on Specific Performance, page 486). The only reason why the respondent wished to revoke the gift was that the appellant discontinued his rendering of services to her. The gift was made for rendering of past and future services. The non-rendering of future services therefore amounted to a partial failure of the consideration for the gift if the gift were to be treated a contract. But the failure of not only partial but even the entire consideration is expressly stated not to be a reason for which a gift may be revoked. The non-rendering of the future services may also be regarded as a breach to perform his part of the contract by the done, treating the gift as a contract. But the failure of not only partial but even the entire consideration is expressly stated not to be a reason for which a gift may be revoked. The non-rendering of the future services may also be regarded as a breach to perform his part of the contract by the done, treating the gift as a contract. The question is whether the donor had the power to revoke the gift for such a non-performance. It would appear that she did not have such a power inasmuch as the gift deed expressly provided what was to happen in case of such non-performance. The only remedy provided by the gift deed was that the donee would give proper maintenance to the donor. In view of the specific remedy given by the gift deed itself, it would not be unfair to presume that the other remedy of rescission or termination of contract was not to be available to the donor. 8. In Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary, at pages 564 and 565; these are the only two meanings given to “condition” and the above discussion would show that the gift in Exhibit D-1 was not a conditional gift in either of the two senses. It was not therefore revocable even under Customary Law. 9. Even considering the matter from the view point of the Law of Contracts, the parties are free to agree that in case of breach the remedy of the injured party shall be restricted to the one agreed to in the contract. In Exhibit D-1, the parties agreed that on the failure of the donee to render services to the donor, the only remedy of the donor was to get proper maintenance from the done. The remedy of revocation of the gift thereby stood excluded. Further, the gift was made not only because the donee agreed to render services in future but also because he had rendered services in the past. The question of any breach of condition by the donee could not arise in respect of the performance of the services in the past. They had been performed once for all and the gift was made for that reason to some extent. The question of any breach of condition by the donee could not arise in respect of the performance of the services in the past. They had been performed once for all and the gift was made for that reason to some extent. At any rate, therefore, the gift could not be revoked in so far as it was made for past services.” In the present case also, there is no agreement between the parties that the gift deed would be suspended on happening or not happening of a specified event. 30. In Mst. Samrathi Devi Vs. Parasuram Pandey and others AIR 1975 Patna 140, the learned Single Judge has held that handing over a gift deed to donee amounts to valid acceptance of gift. The learned Single Judge has held as under: “8. Mr. Premlal, however, contended that the transfer by way of gift in favour of the plaintiff purported to have been made under the document (Ext. 5) was not complete as the same was not accepted by the plaintiff, and she herself had stated to this effect in the impugned document (Ext. D). It is true that a transaction of gift in order to be complete must be accepted by the donee during the lifetime of the donor. The fact of acceptance, however, can be established by different circumstances, such as by the donee's taking possession of the property or by possession of the deed of gift alone. There are numerous authorities in support of the proposition that if a document of gift after its execution or registration in favour of the donee is handed over to him by the donor which he accepts, it should amount in law to be valid acceptance of the gift. In support of this proposition, Mr. J.C. Sinha relied upon a decision of the Judicial Committee in the case of Kalyanasundaram Pillai v. Karuppa Mooppanar, (AIR 1927 PC 42). In this case, their Lordships approved the view of the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in Atmaram Sakharam v. Vaman Janardhan, (AIR 1925 handed over to the donee an instrument of gift duly executed and attested, it would amount to the acceptance of the gift by the donee, and the donor had no power to revoke the gift even if the registration of the instrument had not taken place. This court also in Ram Chandra Prasad v. Sital Prasad, (AIR 1948 Pat 130) took a similar view and held that the fact of the deed being handed over by the donor to the donee was sufficient evidence of his having accepted the gift, and that the acceptance of the said document was a relevant fact to prove the acceptance of the gift by him. To the same effect is the view of the High Court of Travancorc and Cochin in the case of Esakkimadan Pillai v. Esakki Amma, (AIR 1953 Trav-Co 336). It is not necessary to multiply authorities in support of this proposition. From the above, discussion, it must be held that the deed of gift executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff was a valid and binding document resulting in a complete transfer of the interest of defendant No. 1 in respect of the suit properties to the plaintiff.” 31. The learned Single Judge in Kasi Ammal Vs. Vellai Gounder and another 1980 Vol. 2 Madras Law Journal 232 has held that first requirement is that a gift of immovable property should be made by a registered instrument signed by or on behalf of the donor and attested by at least two witnesses and the second requirement is that there must be acceptance of the gift by the donee. The learned Single Judge has held as under: “2. Under Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, a gift of immovable, property should be mad(c) by a registered instrument signed by or on behalf of the donor and attested by at least two witnesses. The second requirement is there must be acceptance of the gift by the donee. In the instant case there is no dispute regarding the compliance of the first condition. Regarding the compliance of the second condition viz., acceptance of the gift by the donee, the plaintiff herein, the appellate Court has held, that there, is no acceptance of the gift by the donee and even the original of Exhibit A-1 was not handed over to her. Exhibit A-4 recites: (Editor: The text of the vernacular matter has not been reproduced. Thus Exhibit A-1 clearly recites that the possession of the property covered under it has been handed recitals in Exhibit A-1, P.Ws. Exhibit A-4 recites: (Editor: The text of the vernacular matter has not been reproduced. Thus Exhibit A-1 clearly recites that the possession of the property covered under it has been handed recitals in Exhibit A-1, P.Ws. 2 and 3, the attestors to Exhibit A-1 have also given evidence that plaintiff has accepted the gift under Exhibit A-l. Thus the twin requirements of valid execution of the gift deed and acceptance of the gift by the decree, are clearly established by the evidence on record. Exhibit A-1 shows that it is an irrevocable deed and the plaintiff's husband Seetharama Goundar has not reserved any power of revocation under Exhibit A-l. On the other hand, Seetharama Goundar has clearly stated in Exhibit A-1, that he would not revoke the settlement deed (Exhibit A-1) for any reason whatsoever. The recitals in Exhibit A-1, thus clearly establish that it is an unconditional, absolute gift in favour of the plaintiff. When there is a valid gift under Exhibit A-1 and the property has vested in favour of the plaintiff, Seetharama Goundar is not competent to execute Exhibit B-5 and revoke the settlement deed which he had executed under Exhibit-A1. Exhibit B-5, is therefore an invalid instrument and has been rightly ignored as not affecting the rights of the plaintiff to the suit property which she got under the original of Exhibit A-l.” As noticed hereinabove, in this case, the donee, i.e. Jai Nand has also signed the gift deed. 32. The learned Single Judge in Tirath Vs. Manmohan Singh and others, AIR 1981 Punjab and Haryana 174 has held that where a gift-deed has been signed by the donees in token of their acceptance of the same, it is only the donor who can object to the delivery of possession. The learned Single Judge has held as under: “10. As regards the contention that the gift was not complete as there was no delivery of possession to the donees I do not find any merit therein. Once it is held that Smt. Banti had become the full owner of the suit land, the plaintiffs have no right to challenge her alienation and as such the suit cannot be held to be maintainable. In any case, the gift-deed has been signed by the donees in token of their acceptance of the same and it is only the donor who could object to the delivery of possession. In any case, the gift-deed has been signed by the donees in token of their acceptance of the same and it is only the donor who could object to the delivery of possession. If the donor supports that a valid gift was made, then non-delivery of possession if any becomes immaterial. Section 123 of the Transfer of immoveable property, the transfer must be effected by a registered instrument signed by or on behalf of the donor, and attested by at least two witnesses. In the present case, the compliance with that provision has been made and under the circumstances the non-delivery of possession, if any, is of no consequence, particularly when the plaintiffs have no right to challenge the gift itself.” 33. In Smt. Shakuntla Devi Vs. Smt. Amar Devi, AIR 1985 Himachal Pradesh 109, the Division Bench of this Court has held that the gift not based on fraud, undue influence or misrepresentation, the cancellation of the same is not valid. Their Lordships have further held that the acceptance of a gift can be either expressed or implied. The Division Bench has held as under: “6. It is contended by Shri D.D. Sud, vice Shri Chhabil Dass, learned counsel for the appellant that the gift made by Shri Sansar Singh being void, he as also his legal representatives were entitled to redeem the mortgage. It is stated by him that the gift was rightly cancelled by Shri Sansar Singh as the donees failed to fulfil the conditions contained in the gift deed. It is also urged that the possession of the property was not delivered to the donees as also the gift was not accepted by them. He has placed reliance on a decision in Mt. Anandi Devi V. Mohan Lal, AIR 1932 All 444. It is convenient to extract relevant observations made in the said decision: “………..We accept the findings of the learned Judge as regards the value to be attached to the oral evidence called on behalf of the plaintiff and his finding that an express acceptance by Mt. Kapuri has not been proved. The learned Judge however merely finds acceptance not proved, because he disbelieves the actual case set up by the plaintiff as regards express acceptance. He never directed his mind to the vital question as to whether there was proof of acceptance within the meaning of S. 3, Evidence Act. Kapuri has not been proved. The learned Judge however merely finds acceptance not proved, because he disbelieves the actual case set up by the plaintiff as regards express acceptance. He never directed his mind to the vital question as to whether there was proof of acceptance within the meaning of S. 3, Evidence Act. It has been argued here by counsel for the respondents that the only acceptance under S. 122, T.P. Act, contemplated by that section is an express acceptance. We however do not find anything in the section to limit acceptance to an express acceptance, and we must take it that acceptance may be either express or implied. As the learned Judge has not circumstantial evidence at all, we must consider it. It has been argued by counsel for the appellant that the law in India based upon S. 122, T.P. Act, is similar to the Common Law of England with regard to acceptance. There is no doubt that in England the law is that acceptance of a gift will be presumed unless dissent is shown. That would mean that in this case, it would be for the defendants to prove that Mt. Kapuri had dissented from the gift. Lord Halsbury in his Laws of England (Vol. 15, P. 418) says: “Express acceptance by the donee is not necessary to complete a gift. It has long been settled that the acceptance of a gift by the donee is to be presumed until his dissent is signified, even though he is not aware of the gift, and this is equally so although the gift be of an onerous nature or of what is called an onerous trust.” This rule of law has been applied to India by a Single Judge of the Patna High Court in the case of Muhammad Abdul Nayeem V. Jhonti Mahton. We however are not prepared to go so far. If S. 122 stopped short at saying that the gift must be accepted by or on behalf of the donee as it would be natural for any person to accept a non-onerous gift, we might be prepared to hold that the English law applied in India.” The aforesaid observations in the above quoted decision do not help the appellant. The acceptance of a gift can be either express or implied. The acceptance of a gift can be either express or implied. In fact, there is no evidence on record to show that the donees had dissented from accepting the gift.” 34. The learned Single Judge of this Court in Mool Raj Vs. Jamna Devi and others, AIR 1995 Himachal Pradesh 117 has held that failure of donee to render services to donor or to maintain donor not specified to be a condition for revocation, in gift deed, the same cannot be revoked being not conditional. The learned Single Judge has held as under: “27. Thus, the present gift deed, whether considered as an outcome of custom or of general law, cannot be said to be revocable one on the ground that it was executed for past and future services. When no specific condition for revocation has been made in the deed itself in the event of maintain the donor, the gift cannot be revoked. | 29. As held above, the gift under reference was not a conditional one and could not be revoked. But on the other hand the donor could ask for maintenance from the defendants. To the donor to get maintenance through the Court would amount to perpetuate her agony in case the donees were not rendering any service and were not maintaining donor. The donees in the present case are none else but donor's husband's brother's sons. It is expected of them to look after the donor who happens to be their uncle's wife. Under the circumstances, it would be essential, in the interests of justice, to direct the donees to maintain and look after the donor properly throughout her life. Such an obligation, otherwise also rested upon the defendants and their father and this obligation becomes legal when the defendants have bound down themselves to render services to the donor throughout her life on account of the averments made in the gift deed. The defendants, as such, are directed to render proper services and maintain the plaintiff-donor throughout her life failing which the donor shall be at liberty to take such legal action against the donees as would be permissible to her under the law.” 35. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Khushal Chand Swarup Chand Zabak Jain, Jalgaon Vs. Sureshchandra Kanhaiyalal Kochar and another, 1995 Supp. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Khushal Chand Swarup Chand Zabak Jain, Jalgaon Vs. Sureshchandra Kanhaiyalal Kochar and another, 1995 Supp. (2) Supreme Court Cases 36 have held that once execution of the gift deed is admitted, due execution under Registration Act is presumed to have been done, it being a registered document. Their Lordships have further held that the testator having divested herself of her title to the property by gift in favour of respondent after due execution and registration of the gift deed, subsequent will executed by her in favour of the appellant would not confer any right in the bequeathed property on the appellant. Their Lordships have held as under: “4. Section 68 of the Evidence Act prescribes proof of execution of the document required by law to be attested. It shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there by an attesting witness alive and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence: Provided that it shall not be necessary to call the attesting witness in proof of execution of any document, not being a Will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied. 5. It is seen from the pleadings that the execution of the document has not been denied. On the other hand the recitals in the Will executed by Raja Bai establish that she admitted the execution. However, she stated therein that it has been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. Fraud and misrepresentation have been specifically dealt with and rejected by the learned Single Judge of the High Court as well as by the Division Bench. Once the execution of the document has been specifically admitted, the due execution under the Registration Act is presumed to have been donee as the gift is admittedly a registered document. Moreover in this case, as seen from paragraph 7 of the judgment of the High Court, one attesting witness has been examined on behalf of the appellant who admitted in the cross-examination that he attested the document. Son of another attesting witness and also the son of the scribe of the document have also been examined on behalf of the respondent. Son of another attesting witness and also the son of the scribe of the document have also been examined on behalf of the respondent. That evidence was considered and the High Court found that the document has been duly proved. Under these circumstances it must be concluded that due execution of the gift deed has been proved by the respondent. It is no doubt clear from the evidence that Raja Bai retained the possession of the property. Obviously the beneficial enjoyment of the property has been retained by her for her lifetime. Under these circumstances Raja Bai having divested (sic herself) of her title to the property after due execution and registration of the gift deed, she has been divested of her right and interest except her beneficial right to enjoyment of the property during her lifetime. Therefore, the Will executed in favour of the appellant is a document which does not confer any right in the bequeathed properties on the appellant and is inconsequential. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs.” 36. In Kamakshi Ammal Vs. Rajalakshmi and others, AIR 1995 Madras 415 the Division Bench has held that when there is a specific recital in deed that possession is given, the presumption of acceptance arises. The Division Bench has held as under: “21 Further, paragraphs 3 and 4 of the plaint specifically says that Pavunambal accepted the settlement. Further, the plaint also says that the original settlement deeds are also filed along with the plaint. As against this particular allegation regarding the original settlement deeds being filed by the plaintiff, the written statement only states that the original settlement deeds were always with the 7th defendant and they were never in the custody of Pavunambal or plaintiff or defendants 1 to 6. In other words, there was no allegation a all in the written statement that the original settlement deeds were stolen by the plaintiff's father (1st defendant) from the 7th defendant. The suggestion comes in only when PW 1 is examined. Further, DW 1, the 8th defendant does not at all depose so. We cannot accept the story of plaintiff's father or the plaintiff stealing away the original settlement deed from the 7th defendant. Once that story is not acceptable there could be the necessary inference that the original settlement deeds were given over to the donee Pavunambal at the time of the gifts. We cannot accept the story of plaintiff's father or the plaintiff stealing away the original settlement deed from the 7th defendant. Once that story is not acceptable there could be the necessary inference that the original settlement deeds were given over to the donee Pavunambal at the time of the gifts. In Samrathi v. Parasuram ( AIR 1975 Pat 140 ) also it has been held, relying on Kalyana-sundaram Pillai v. Karuppa Moopanar (AIR 1927 PC 42) and Atmaram Sakharam v. Vaman Janardhan (AIR 1925 Bom 210 (FB)), that the fact of the gift deed being handed over by the donor to the donee, was sufficient evidence of his having accepted the gift. Learned counsel for the appellant was vehemently contending that despite the settlement deed, the 7th defendant alone continued to possess and enjoy the property and that there was also no mutation of names in the Municipal register pursuant to the settlements. According to him, from this, it can be inferred that there was no acceptance of the gift by the donee. But, we are unable to accept this contention. Even assuming that the 7th defendant continued to possess and enjoy the property alter the above referred to settlements, that by itself would not necessarily lead to the inference that there was no acceptance by the donee of the gifts. Even after accepting the gifts, the donee Pavun-ambal income from the properties settled in view of the relationship of father and daughter between the donor and donee. Further, Exs.A.3 and A.4 specifically recite that possession has been handed over to the donee. When such recital is there, a presumption arises that possession has been handed over to the donee. (Vide Fatima Bibi v. Khairum Bibi (AIR 1923 Mad 52). No doubt, it may be rebuttable presumption. But, in the present case, delivery of possession of the gifted property is not absolute requirement, for the completeness or the validity of the gift as found in Muslim Law of Gifts. All that we have to find in the present case is whether there was acceptance of the gift by the donee. Even assuming that the donor continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the property gifted, from that alone, it cannot be necessarily inferred that acceptance by the donee of the gift was not there. All that we have to find in the present case is whether there was acceptance of the gift by the donee. Even assuming that the donor continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the property gifted, from that alone, it cannot be necessarily inferred that acceptance by the donee of the gift was not there. No doubt in Venkatasubbamma v. Narayana-swami (1954) 1 Mad LJ 194: ( AIR 1954 Mad 215 ) it was held that the facts relied on to draw an inference of acceptance must be by acts of positive conduct on the part of the donee, and not merely passive acquiescing such as standing by when the deed was executed or registered. But, the facts in the present case are different as mentioned above and there are enough features as mentioned above to at least hold that there was implied acceptance of the gifts in question. Even (1954) 1 Mad LJ 194 (supra) has held that law requires acceptance, which may even be implied. Therefore, we concur with the Court below in holding that Exs.A.3 and A.4 settlements are valid.”` 37. In Naramadaben Maganlal Thakker Vs. Pranjivandas Maganlal Thakeer & Ors. 1997(1) S.L.J. 80, their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that execution of a registered gift deed, acceptance and delivery of property together make the gift complete. Their Lordships have held as under: “3. It is now well settled legal position that a document has to be read harmoniously as a whole giving effect to all the clauses contained in the document which manifest the intention of the persons who execute the document. The material part of the gift deed reads as under: “The said immovable property as described above with the ground floor and with the ways to pass and with the water disposal and with all other possession whereof is handed over to you under the following conditions to be observed by you and your heirs and legal representatives as long as the Sun and the Moon shine. Therefore, now I or my heirs or legal representatives have no right on the said property. You and your heirs and legal representatives have no right on the said property. You and your heirs and legal representatives have become the exclusive owners of the same. Therefore, now I or my heirs or legal representatives have no right on the said property. You and your heirs and legal representatives have no right on the said property. You and your heirs and legal representatives have become the exclusive owners of the same. You and your heirs and legal representatives are entitled to enjoy, to transfer or to use the said property as you like under the conditions mentioned in this deed. id immovable property as described above with the ground floor and with the ways to pass and with the water disposal and with all other concerned rights, titles is gifted to you and the possession whereof is handed over to you under the following conditions to be observed by you and your heirs and legal representatives as long as the Sun and the Moon shine. Therefore, now I or my heirs or legal representatives have no right on the said property. You and your heirs and legal representatives have no right on the said property. You and your heirs and legal representatives have become the exclusive owners of the same. You and your heirs and legal representatives are entitled to enjoy, to transfer or to use the said property as you like under the conditions mentioned in this deed. Except myself, there is nobody’s right, title, interest or share on the said property: I have not mortgaged the same by any document. Yet however anybody comes forward to claim the fight, I shall remove the same. The said property is gifted to you on such conditions that and you are made owners by the gift deed of said property on such conditions that there are 15 rooms on the said property at present. I am rightful to receive the rents and the mesne profit whatsoever accused from the said rooms throughout my life. I am only entitled to receive the mesne profit of the said property till I live. Therefore, I, the executants, shall be entitled to let out the said buildings (rooms), to receive the rent amount to make all the other arrangement throughout my life. Similarly, the said property shall be in my possession till I live. Therefore, I have gifted this property to you by reserving permanently my rights to collect the mesne profit of the existing rooms ownership right will be conferred to you till I live. Similarly, the said property shall be in my possession till I live. Therefore, I have gifted this property to you by reserving permanently my rights to collect the mesne profit of the existing rooms ownership right will be conferred to you till I live. After my death you are entitled to transfer the said property. I shall not give in any way my right to anybody to collect the mesne profit. You may get transferred the said property in your name in support of this deed. This gift deed is executed to you under the aforesaid conditions.” 4. The material part of the cancellation deed reads as under:- “I have, on 15.5.65, executed a conditional gift deed of Rs.9,000/- in words Rupees nine thousand in favour of you. The said deed has been presented in the office of the Sub Registrar, Baroda at Sr. No. 2153 of the book no. 1 and it is registered on 15.5.65. The description of the property mentioned in the said deed is as under: “I executed to you a conditional gift deed of the said property from sky to earth. You had promised me to fulfil the oral conditions between us. But immediately after making the gift accordingly, you denied to fulfil the said conditions. The possession of the gifted property is not handed over to you. So in fact you have not accepted the conditional gift of the property and I am also not willing to act according to the conditional gift. It is also mentioned in the said conditional gift deed that the possession shall be kept with me. And so accordingly my possession is continued. My possession is from the beginning and it is permanent. You are not ready to act according to our conditions. Therefore, I have to execute immediately this deed of cancelling the conditional gift deed between us. Therefore, I hereby cancel the conditional gift deed dated 15.5.65 of Rs.9,000/- in words rupees nine thousand presented at the serial no. 2153 on 15.5.65 in the office of the Sub Registrar Baroda for registration. Therefore, the said conditional gift deed dated 15.5.65 is hereby cancelled and meaningless. The property under the conditional gift has not been and is not to be transferred in your name.” 6. 2153 on 15.5.65 in the office of the Sub Registrar Baroda for registration. Therefore, the said conditional gift deed dated 15.5.65 is hereby cancelled and meaningless. The property under the conditional gift has not been and is not to be transferred in your name.” 6. Acceptance by or on behalf of the donee must be made during the life time of the donor and while he is still capable of giving. 7. It would thus be clear that the execution of a registered gift deed, acceptance of the gift and delivery of the donor is divested of his title and the donee becomes the absolute owner of the property. The question is: whether the gift in question had become complete under Section 123 of the TP Act? It is seen from the recitals of the gift deed that Motilal Gopalji gifted the property to the respondent. In other words, it was a conditional gift. There is no recital of acceptance nor is there any evidence in proof of acceptance. Similarly, he had specifically stated that the property would remain in his possession till he was alive. Thereafter, the gifted property would become his property and he was entitled to collect mesne profits in respect of the existing rooms throughout his life. The gift deed conferred only limited right upon the respondent-donee. The gift was to become operative after the death of the donor and he was to be entitled to have the right to transfer the property absolutely by way of gift or he would be entitled to collect the mesne profits. It would thus be seen that the enjoyment of the property during his life time. The recitals in the cancellation deed is consistent with the recitals in the gift deed. He had expressly stated that the respondent had cheated him and he had not fulfilled the conditions subject to which there was an oral understanding between them. Consequently, he mentioned that the conditional gift given to him was cancelled. He also mentioned that the possession and enjoyment remained with him during his life time. He stated, “I have to execute immediately this deed of cancelling the conditional gift deed between us. Therefore, I hereby cancel the conditional gift deed dated 15.5.65 of Rs. 9000/- in words rupees nine thousand presented at the Serial no. 2153 on 15.5.65 in the office of the Sub-Registrar Baroda for registration. He stated, “I have to execute immediately this deed of cancelling the conditional gift deed between us. Therefore, I hereby cancel the conditional gift deed dated 15.5.65 of Rs. 9000/- in words rupees nine thousand presented at the Serial no. 2153 on 15.5.65 in the office of the Sub-Registrar Baroda for registration. Therefore, the said conditional gift deed dated 15.5.65 is hereby cancelled and meaningless. The property under the conditional gift has not been and is not to be transferred in your name.” Thus, he expressly made it clear that he did not hand over the possession to the respondent nor did the gift become complete during the life time of the donor. Thus the gift had become ineffective and inoperative. It was duly cancelled. The question then is: whether the appellant would get the right to the property? It is not in dispute that after the cancellation deed dated June 9, 1965 came to be executed, duly putting an end to be conditional gift deed dated May 15, 1965, he executed his last Will on May 17, 1965 and died two days thereafter.” possession as per recital contained in the gift has been handed over to the donee, i.e., Jai Chand. 38. The learned Single Judge in Tokha Vs. Smt. Biru and others AIR 2003 Himachal Pradesh 107 has held that once the possession of immovable property viz land delivered to donee, the gift is complete and when no condition of revocation in gift deed in case services were stopped to be rendered by donee, the gift deed cannot be termed as conditional and revocable one. The learned Single Judge has held as under: “22. In the case in hand there is no specific condition either for giving maintenance or for revoking of the gift deed in case services are stopped to be rendered by the donee. Anyway, the fact remains, as has been stated in the deed of gift that the gift was in lieu of services meaning thereby that the donee had to render services to the donor-plaintiff but in the absence of any specific condition in the event of failure of the donee to render services, the gift could not be revoked. Thus, the deed of gift Ext. Thus, the deed of gift Ext. D-1 if considered as an outcome of general law cannot be said to be revocable one when no specific condition for its revocation has been made in the deed Itself in the event of failure of the donee to provide services to the donor or maintain the donor, the gift cannot be revoked. 23. In that view of the matter, and in the light of the above said decisions of various High Courts, the first appellate Court acted illegally in considering the document of gift to be conditional and revocable one. The above first question of law accordingly stands answered in favour of the defendants and as a consequence thereof it is held that deed of gift Ext. D-1 was unconditional, it could not be revoked on account of the failure of donee (since deceased) to render services or to maintain the plaintiff. 29. In Thakur Raghunath Ji Maharaj v. Ramesh Chandra, (2001) 5 SCC 18 : AIR 2001 SC 2340 the facts were that land was gifted for a specific charitable purpose for constructing a Degree College building thereon with the condition attached to it that if the building was not constructed within six months the deed would come to an end and donor would become entitled to the property. An of gift was executed. In the facts of that case their Lordships held that relationship between the donor and donee was fiduciary nature, donee continued to be trustee and donor could claim back the property on breach of the conditions mentioned therein and donee having failed to fulfil the conditions the suit for possession filed by the donor was rightly decreed by the first appellate Court. The ratio of this judgment is not applicable in the facts of the present case. In the case on hand the agreement Ext. PW-3/A was not executed on 12-1-1984 when the deed of gift was executed by the plaintiff in favour of donee Singh whereas the alleged agreement was only executed on 5-3-1984 just one day prior to the registration of the deed of gift on 6-3-1984 and in these circumstances the deed of gift and the agreement would not form part of the same transaction and cannot be read together and given effect to as held by the first appellate Court.” 39. The learned Single Judge in Balai Chandra Parui Vs. The learned Single Judge in Balai Chandra Parui Vs. Smt. Durga Bala Dasi and others, AIR 2004 Calcutta 276 has held that in the absence of coercion, fraud and undue influence, the gift deed could not be revoked. The learned Single Judge has held as under: “31. Now, let me come to the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties as well as the document on record. From the evidence on record and from the judgments and decrees passed by the Court-be-low it appears that there are some facts which are admitted. Such as Smt. Durga Bala Devi executed the deed of gift in favour of Mr. Balai Chandra Parul that is the defendant/said Balai Chandra Parui accepted the deed of gift. In the said deed of gift there remains three attesting witnesses. One Sri Ganesh Chandra Das, the deed writer, another Sri Patitosh Chakraborty and the third is Sri Sarada Charan Das. In the last line of the deed it has been written in Bengali Sri Balai Chandra Parui read and explain the purport of the deed of gift to Smt. Durga Bala Devi the donor herein. Up to this stage everything is admitted and/or comes out of record. Now, let me see the provisions of Section 42 and Section 126 of the Transfer of property Act, Both the Sections are quoted hereinbelow :- "42. Transferred by person having authority to revoke former transfers - where a person transfers any immovable property, reserving power to revoke the transfer, and subsequently transfers the property for consideration to another transferee, such transfer operates in favour of such transferee (subject to any condition attached to the exercise of the power) as a revocation of the former transfer to the extent of power." "126. When gift may be suspended or revoked -the donor and donee may agree that on the happening of any specified which does not depend on the Will of the donor a gift shall be suspended or revoked; but a gift which the parties agreed shall be irrevocable wholly or impart, at the mere Will of the donor, is void wholly or impart, as the case may be. Gift may also be revoked in any of the cases (save want or failure of consideration) in which, if it were a contract it might be rescinded. Save as aforesaid, a Gift cannot be revoked. Gift may also be revoked in any of the cases (save want or failure of consideration) in which, if it were a contract it might be rescinded. Save as aforesaid, a Gift cannot be revoked. Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to effect the rights of transferees for consideration without notice." 33. The above being the position there I is no scope in normal course for revocation of a deed of gift when the said deed of gift i was executed by the donor accepted by the ! donee and registered by the registering authority. From the provisions of Registration Act it is clear that the registering authority I shall enquire. This term "shall Enquirer" is really important and most relevant here. The Transfer of Property Act also provides that normally a deed of gift cannot be revoked. The Registration Act as referred to above also provides that the registering officer will satisfy himself about the identity of the parties. Therefore, identification and enquiry about the execution of deed of gift completes the deed. 34. Reading the provisions of Section 42 and Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act the ratio which comes out is that the deed of gift can be revoked if there is an agreement for revocation. In such circumstances the deed of gift is not at all a gift because if somebody agrees to gift some property to anybody at the same time the donor retains the power to revoke the deed then it cannot be termed to be a deed of gift. 34A. The deed of gift however can be revoked :- revoked or if the deed of gift has been executed under undue influence or donee commits fraud. The Registration Act also give support to the conditions that Registration or execution of the deed-is donee after the satisfaction of the registered regarding identification. (ii) If the donee obtain the deed of gift executing under influence or committing fraud. These are the three conditions 'in which the deed of gift can be revoked. Let me now see whether either of the three conditions successfully prevailing over the first deed of gift which was executed and registered. 35. Second question remains the question of coercion. (ii) If the donee obtain the deed of gift executing under influence or committing fraud. These are the three conditions 'in which the deed of gift can be revoked. Let me now see whether either of the three conditions successfully prevailing over the first deed of gift which was executed and registered. 35. Second question remains the question of coercion. This coercion is not the point involved in the instant case inasmuch as it is nobody's case that the first deed 'of gift executed in favour of the defendant was donee under undue influence.” 40. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Asokan Vs. Lakshmikutty and others (2007) 13 Supreme Court Cases 210 have held that in order to constitute a valid gift acceptance thereof is essential. Their Lordships have further held that there may be various means to prove acceptance of a gift. The document may be handed over to a donee, which in a given situation may also amount to a valid acceptance. The fact that possession had been given to the donee also raises a presumption of acceptance. Their Lordships have also held that once a gift is complete, the same cannot be rescinded. And for any reason whatsoever, the subsequent conduct of a donee cannot be a ground for rescission of a valid gift. Their Lordships have further held that when a registered document is executed and the executors are aware of the terms and nature of the document, a presumption arises in regard to the correctness thereof. Their Lordships have held as under: “11. Mr. M.P. Vinod, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that the first Appellate Court as also the High Court committed a serious error in arriving at the consideration the fact that the deeds of gift being not onerous ones and the factum of handing over of possession of the properties which were the subject matter of the gift, having been stated in the deeds of gift themselves, it was not necessary for the appellant to prove that he accepted the same. It was furthermore urged that keeping in view the provisions of Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, no plea contrary to or inconsistent with the recitals made in the deeds of gift is permissible to be raised. 13. We have noticed the terms of the deeds of gift. It was furthermore urged that keeping in view the provisions of Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, no plea contrary to or inconsistent with the recitals made in the deeds of gift is permissible to be raised. 13. We have noticed the terms of the deeds of gift. Ex facie, they are not onerous in nature. The definition of gift contained in Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act provides that the essential elements thereof are: (i) the absence of consideration; (ii) the donor; (iii) the donee; (iv) the subject matter (v) the transfer; and (vi) the acceptance. 14. Gifts do not contemplate payment of any consideration or compensation. It is, however, beyond any doubt or dispute that in order to constitute a valid gift acceptance thereof is essential. We must, however, notice that the Transfer of Property Act does not prescribe any particular mode of acceptance. It is the circumstances attending to the transaction which may be relevant for determining the question. There may be various means to prove acceptance of a gift. The document may be handed over to a donee, which in a given situation may also amount to a valid acceptance. The fact that possession had been given to the donee also raises a presumption of acceptance. [See Sanjukta Ray v. Bimelendu Mohanty AIR 1997 Orissa 131, Kamakshi Ammal v. Rajalakshmi, AIR 1995 Mad 415 and Samrathi Devi v. Parsuram Pandey AIR 1975 Patna 140] 16. 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 is not a case that the appellant was not aware of the recitals contained in deeds of gift. The very fact that the defendants contend that the donee was to perform certain obligations, is itself indicative of the fact that the parties were aware thereabout. Even a silence may sometime act in respect thereof as an express acceptance is not necessary for completing the transaction of gift. 18. Mr. Iyer, however, submitted that it would be open to the donors to prove that in fact no possession had been handed over. Strong reliance in this behalf has been placed on S.V.S. Muhammad Yusuf Rowther and another v. Muhammad Yusuf Rowther and other [AIR 1958 Madras 527] and Alavi v. Aminakutty & Others [1984 KLT 61 (NOC)]. 22. 18. Mr. Iyer, however, submitted that it would be open to the donors to prove that in fact no possession had been handed over. Strong reliance in this behalf has been placed on S.V.S. Muhammad Yusuf Rowther and another v. Muhammad Yusuf Rowther and other [AIR 1958 Madras 527] and Alavi v. Aminakutty & Others [1984 KLT 61 (NOC)]. 22. Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act covers both contract as also grant and other types of disposal of property. A distinction may exist in relation to a recital and the terms of a contract but such a question does not arise herein inasmuch as the said deeds of gift were executed out of love and affection as well as on the ground that the donee is the son and successor of the donor and so as to enable him to live a good family life. 23. Could they now turn round and say that he was to fulfill a promise? The answer thereto must be rendered in the negative. It is one thing to say that the execution of the deed is based on an aspiration or belief, but it is another thing to say that the same constituted an onerous gift. What, however, was necessary is to prove undue influence so as to bring the case within the purview of Section 16 of the Indian Contract Act. It was not done. The deeds of gift categorically state, as an ingredient for a valid High Court of H.P. transaction, that the property had been handed over to the donee and he had accepted the same. In our opinion, even assuming that the legal presumption therefore may be raised, the same is a rebuttable one but in a case of this nature, a heavy onus would lie on the donors. 26. It will bear repetition to state that we are in this case concerned with the construction of recitals made in a registered document. 30. Once a gift is complete, the same cannot be rescinded. For any reason whatsoever, the subsequent conduct of a donee cannot be a ground for rescission of a valid gift.” 41. Accordingly, in view of the discussion and analysis made hereinabove, there is no question of law much less to say substantial question of law involved in the regular second appeal and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Accordingly, in view of the discussion and analysis made hereinabove, there is no question of law much less to say substantial question of law involved in the regular second appeal and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No order as to costs.