The main legal point established in the judgment is that a valid gift accepted by the donees cannot be revoked, and the conditions under which revocation of a gift is allowed.

1. Plaintiff has come up in second appeal. He sued for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from entering upon the plaint property or in the alternative for recovery of possession. The property was held by one Pokkan as a kuzhikanom tenant under Valia Purayil tarwad. While so, a gift deed was executed by him of his rights in the property on 28 91934 in favour of his upatavazhi consisting of the plaintiff and others. Ex-Al is the copy of that document. Later on, that document was cancelled by him by a deed of cancellation Ex-Bll. Subsequent to that, the marupat was renewed by Pokkan in favour of the jenmi-tharwad under Ex-Bl. Then on 19-3-51 he sold away his rights in the property by Ex-B10 to the first defendant who is his son-in-law and the 2nd defendant the brother of the 1st defendant. They are also the members of the tarwad. According to the plaintiff, his upathavazhi was in possession of the property, and the defendants attempted to trespass into the property. Hence the suit was filed. But according to the defendants the gift was never acted upon. They were in possession even before Ex-B10 was executed in their favour. The trial court held that the gift was not accepted by the donees and it did not take effect. The suit was accordingly dismissed; but the learned appellate judge has held that even though the gift deed was acted upon the plaintiffs have not proved that they had possession within twelve years of the suit, and also that Pokkan and the defendants have been in adverse possession. On these grounds the suit was dismissed by the appellate court also.

2. It is regrettable that neither of the courts below has understood the plaintiff's case properly. The first question that calls for consideration is whether the gift was valid and had taken effect. A mere reading of Ex-A1 is sufficient to convince any one that it is a valid gift and that it had taken effect then and there. The document was executed in favour of his upatavazhi out of love and affection for the members thereof. The property was delivered over simultaneously with the document, and the donees were directed to effect improvements also thereon. His right of enjoyment for life was alone reserved with him.

Thus the property was put in their hands; but the right to take the usufruct was alone retained by him. All the prior title deeds of the property were also handed over to the donees. In the face of these clear statements in the document it is now idle to contend that the gift did not take effect and possession was not handed over. Under S.123 of the Transfer of Property Act, in the case of a gift of immovable property the transfer is effected by a registered instrument signed by or on behalf of the donor and attested by atleast two witnesses. All these requirements have been satisfied in the present case and the document was perfect in every respect. A Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Lallu Singh v. Gur Narain (ILR. 45 All. ll5) has held that immediate handing over of possession is not necessary for the validity of a gift. The learned judges observed:

"On a construction of S.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 by a registered document, duly signed and attested, validly 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."

There is no basis for the contention that the gift was not accepted by the donees. Pokkan after the execution of the gift was staying with the donees and from their conduct it was never possible to infer that the gift was not accepted by them. Pokkan himself says in the document that possession was delivered and that the title deeds