The main legal point established in the judgment is that a gift cannot be revoked in the absence of a specific condition for revocation in the event of the donee's failure to provide services or maintain the donor.

Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.—This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 3.5.1993 passed by District Judge, Chamba in First Appeal No. 6 of 1992, who, on appeal reversed the judgment and decree of Senior Sub Judge, Chamba dated 18.12.1990 dismissing the suit of the respondent No. 1. The defendant No. 1 Tokha in the suit out of which this appeal arises, is the appellant and the respondent No. 1 is the plaintiff and other two proforma respondents herein are defendants 2 and 3. Hereinafter the parties will be referred to as the plaintiff and the defendants.

2. Smt. Biru plaintiff filed suit for declaration and possession against the defendants inter alia alleging that she made a gift in favour of one Singh of her land comprising khasra Nos. 78, 92, 98, 162, 351, 381, 396, 410, 425 and 442 measuring 7 bighas and 2 biswas and khasra Nos. 72, 80, 142, 206, 237, 339, 421 measuring 3 bighas and 4 biswas situated in Mohal Saho, Pargana Himgiri, Tehsil Churah, District Chamba. Necessary deed of gift was executed on 12.1.1984 mark Ext. D-l and the said gift was made for providing services to the plaintiff during her life time and on her death to perform her last rites by the donee Singh, The plaintiff alleged that an agreement was executed on 5.3.1984 by the donee undertaking to provide maintenance to the plaintiff during her life time and in case of failure to do so, the deed of gift shall be restored to her. According to the plaintiff, the donee provided maintenance to her till he was alive and after his death on 26.10.1989 the defendants succeeded to the land in dispute which was the subject matter of the deed of gift but since they have failed to provide maintenance to her, therefore, prayer for declaration that the defendants being successor of deceased Singh were bound by the agreement Ext. PW-3/A executed by deceased to maintain the plaintiff, hence the gift shall stand revoked and the possession of the land in dispute shall be restored to her.

3. The defendants in their written statement contested and resisted the suit of the plaintiff mainly on the grounds that deceased Singh had been looking after and providing maintenance to the plaintiff and in lieu thereof, she gifted the land in dispute to Singh and after the death of the donee, the land in dispute having been succeeded by them they are not bound to provide any maintenance to the plaintiff and further that the gift being complete and the possession having passed over to the defendants, the plaintiff was not entitled to revocation of the gift and therefore, the suit was not maintainable. They pleaded that deceased Singh never executed any agreement on 5.3.1984 regarding the revocation of the deed of gift and the said agreement was false and forged having no binding effect and even if it was presumed to have been so executed, the deceased Singh was bound to provide maintenance to the plaintiff till his life time and after his death defendants are not bound to provide any service to the plaintiff or to maintain her.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court settled the following issues on 11.6.1991 : 1. Whether the suit in the present form is not maintainable as alleged? OPD

2. Whether the writing dated 5.3.1984 was executed between the plaintiff and deceased Singh creating a right of maintenance qua the gift deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of deceased Singh on 12.1.1984 registered on 6.4.1984? OPP

3. If issue No. 2 is proved in affirmative whether the defendants are bound to provide maintenance to the plaintiff in view of the writing dated 5.3.1984? OPP

4. If issue No. 3 is also proved in affirmative whether the defendants have failed to provide maintenance and thus the gift deed and the consequential mutation of the estate of deceased Singh in favour of the defendants are liable to be set-aside? OPP

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the gifted property as praye