1. Appeal involves the short question whether Ext.A1 gift had been accepted by the donee, plaintiff in the suit.

2. Suit was instituted for a decree of injunction,but, later amended for declaration that Ext.A1 gift deed has been accepted by plaintiff, and it is valid and binding on the first defendant her mother.

3. Property covered by Ext.A1, with 8 ¾ cents land also, belonged to first defendant and her mother Kunkichi. On the death of Kunkichi entire property vested with the first defendant. She executed Ext.A1 gift deed excluding 8 ¾ cents in favour of plaintiff. Plaintiff is settled in Goa where her husband is carrying on business. She received a notice sent by the mother informing revocation of Ext.A1 gift deed under Ext.B2 deed. Suit was thereupon instituted for a decree of injunction to restrain the two defendants, her mother and brother, from committing waste in the property imputing that cancellation deed was created at the instance of the brother Subsequently plaint was amended to seek a declaration that Ext.A1 gift deed has been accepted by her, it has come into effect, and it is binding on first defendant. Both defendants, mother and son together, resisted the suit contending that first defendant continued as the owner of property, and there was no parting of possession of property to plaintiff and acceptance of gift by her. Some disputes arose between the sons of first defendant with demands for sale of portions of plaint property, and then, she executed Ext.A1 gift deed in favour of plaintiff to save the property from transfer at the compulsion of some of her children, according to defendants. Original of the gift deed (Ext.B1) was retained by first defendant, and title and possession over property was not transferred in favour of plaintiff, was the further case of defendants.

4. On the pleadings of parties the court below framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the suit is maintainable?

2. Whether the plaintiff has any right for declaration as prayed for?

3. Whether the gift deed dated 13.5.86 executed by the first defendant is valid?

4. Whether the plaintiff has any possession over the plaint schedule property?

5. Relief and cost?

On the materials placed by both sides which consisted of the evidence of plaintiff as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A3 and that of first defendant as DW1 and Exts.B1 and B2 for defendants and, appreciating the questions of fact and law involved in the case, learned Sub Judge came to the conclusion that there was no acceptance of Ext.A1 deed by the donee (plaintiff) and even after execution of the gift deed donor (first defendant) continued as owner with possession of that property. Ext.B2 cancellation deed revoking Ext.A1 deed was found valid, and plaintiff was nonsuited.

5. Pending the appeal first and second respondents, both of them had passed away, and their legal representatives have been brought on record as additional respondents 3 to 10.

6. Close relationship of the donor and done in Ext.A1, plaintiff is settled at a far away place with her family, and the recitals in Ext.A1 gift deed evidencing outright transfer of property to donee reserving life interest alone with donor were not taken into account by learned Sub Judge while forming a conclusion that the gift has not been accepted by plaintiff, is the submission of her counsel. In evidence first defendant as DW1 has stated that Ext.A1 was not a gift deed but a will and that her children were not aware of the execution of Ext.A1. Second defendant, her son, is one of the attestors in Ext.A1 gift deed and the case projected by her in evidence that Ext.A1 is only a will is against the recitals in that deed and also Ext.B2, cancellation deed, later executed by her, submits the counsel. On transfer under Ext.A1 only life interest to first defendant, the donor, for enjoyment of property is reserved, cannot be considered as a circumstance to hold that the gift has not been accepted by donee, submits the counsel. Ext.A3 deed was executed by pl