The question as to whether acceptance of a gift by a minor is valid in Muslim Law arises for consideration in this appeal. The defendant, who suffered a decree at the hands of both the courts below is the appellant. The parties and facts are hereinafter referred to as they are available before the trial court.

2. The case as unfolded from the records is that when the mother of the plaintiff became pregnant, she took shelter with the defendant, who was gracious enough to give her accommodation. The plaintiff was born. Plaintiff's mother continued her residence and they lived like members of a family. As far as the defendant is concerned, the plaintiff was like her own daughter and she showered all her love on her. The defendant took care of all her affairs since the mother of the plaintiff had to go abroad on employment. Out of the immense affection and love for the plaintiff, the defendant executed Ext.A1 gift deed dated 2.11.1987, whereby she gifted the 10 cents obtained by her under kudikidappu to the plaintiff. However, the defendant was clever enough to retain life interest and right of residence in the house. Everything was going well till the marriage of the plaintiff. On 18.5.2002 the defendant executed Ext.B1 cancellation deed cancelling Ext.A1 gift deed in favour of the plaintiff. Though no reason as such is given in the cancellation deed, it appears that after the marriage the attitude of the plaintiff towards the defendant was quite unsatisfactory and far from pleasant. Coming to know about the cancellation deed, the plaintiff laid the suit for a declaration and injunction.

3. The trial court raised necessary issues for consideration. The evidence consists of the testimony of P.W.1 and the documents marked as Exts. A1 and A2 by the plaintiff. The defendant examined herself as D.W.1 and had Exts. B1 to B6 marked. On a consideration of the materials before it, the trial court came to the conclusion that the gift had been accepted as is envisaged under the Muslim Personal Law and therefore it could not be cancelled. A decree declaring the right of the plaintiff subject to the life interest of the defendant was passed. The defendant carried the matter in appeal as A.S. 3 of 2006 before the Sub Court, Alappuzha. The lower appellate court on a consideration of the materials before it concurred with the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Hence this Second Appeal.

4. The question of law that arises for consideration reads as follows:

"When plaintiff was aged 12 years at the time of execution of Ext.A1 gift deed by the defendant and plaintiff has no case that the gift was accepted by her legal guardian, whether finding of courts below that Ext.A1 gift deed was accepted by the plaintiff and plaintiff has title to the plaint schedule property is sustainable."

5. As already noticed, the facts fall within a narrow compass. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant confined his argument to the sole question whether there is a proper acceptance of the gift in favour of the plaintiff. According to the learned counsel, on going through the evidence of P.W.1, it can be seen that the acceptance was by her. She was only aged 12 at time of the gift deed and if so, the minor could not have accepted the gift. Then the gift itself is invalid and has not taken effect and therefore the courts below were not justified in passing a decree against the defendant.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent pointed out that there is nothing which prevented a minor from accepting the gift deed in Mohammedan law. Probably one could say that possession could not be taken by the minor and that may have to be done by a guardian recognized by Muslim personal law. Learned counsel drew the attention of this court to the fact that there is no dispute regarding the fact that possession has infact been taken in accordance with law and the only point raised is that minor cannot accept a gift.

7. In support of his contention, learned counsel for t