A gift is valid if there is no evidence of fraud, undue influence, misrepresentation, or onerous conditions, and acceptance is presumed until dissent is signified. A legal representative cannot set up an independent title that contradicts the findings against the deceased party they represent.

H. S. Thakur, J.—This is a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court,

2. A few facts relevant to decide this appeal may be stated. Shri Sansar Chand filed a suit for redemption of a mortgage. It was a mortgage with possession. Shri Sansar Singh alleged that he mortgaged the property in dispute in may, 1950 in favour of Smt. Amar Devi for a consideration of Rs.

300. It was contended by him that the entire amount stood paid off because the mortgagee was in possession and she felled a number of trees and thereby the entire mortgage money stood paid off and that he was entitled to the possession of the property without payment of any amount. Smt. Amar Devi controverted the allegations of Shri Sansar Singh plaintiff and contended that no trees were cut by her and the entire mortgage money was due to her, though she remained in possession. It was also contended by her that Shri Sansar Singh executed a gift deed on March 12, 1959 in favour of Shri Bharat Singh, Smt. Shakuntla Devi and Smt. Ram Devi. As such, it was contended that he ceased to have any interest in the landed property and had no locus standi to file the suit. It was, however, contended by Shri Sansar Singh that the gift was the result of fraud and undue influence and that it was also hit by a custom besides being onerous and not binding on the parties. It was also pleaded that it was a conditional gift and the donees Bharat Singh and others did non fulfil the condition and the gift is deemed to have been revoked. He also executed a registered deed of cancellation of gift on April 20, 19^9. It may be pointed out that the aforesaid donees were not made parties to the suit. The trial Court, however, dismissed the suit holding that Shri Sansar Singh had no locus standi to file the suit.

3. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment passed by the trial Court, Shri Sansar Singh preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge. Shri Sansar Singh died during the pendency of the appeal and Smt. Shakuntla Deyi his daughter, who was also one of the donees, was substituted as a legal representative of Shri Sansar Singh. The learned District Judge held that the gift was defective because it was not accompanied by delivery of possession. He further held that since trees were not felled by the mortgagee, the entire amount of Rs. 300 was payable to her for the redemption of mortgage. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the suit was decreed.

4. Smt. Amar Devi preferred a second appeal before the High Court and it was held that Bharat Singh, Smt. Shakuntla Devi and Smt. Ram Devi were necessary parties. The plea, however, regarding gift was left open for a fresh decision in the presence of the said persons. The case was remanded for impleading Bharat Singh, Shakuntla Devi and Ram Devi, They were also allowed to file their written statements. The issues were to be framed and a fresh decision was required to be given. The learned trial Court in compliance with the order, framed elaborate isssues and considered every aspect of the case relating to the gift made by Shri Sansar Singh. The learned trial Court held that the gift was valid and could not be invalidated on any ground. The trial Court further held that no tree was cut and the entire amount of Rs, 300 was due. Ultimately, it was found that Shri Sansar Singh had no locus standi and the suit deserved to be dismissed. The said court considered the plea of Smt. Shakuntla Devi that she was not only a legal representative but also a donee from Shri Sansar Singh and, as such, she was competent to maintain the suit even as a donee, if not as a legal representative. The said court, however, held that she could not set up a title independent of the title set up by Shri Sansar Singh and that she was only a legal representative and was substituted in place of Shri Sansar Singh, It was also observed that she could not superimpose her title as donee-mortgager and that if Shri Sansar Singh was