Physical delivery of possession is not essential.

The second appeal has been preferred by the defendant.

2. The suit has been filed for declaration and injunction.

.3. The case of the plaintiff was that on 30.5.1956 one Karuppiah Padayachi and his wife Maruthayee executed a settlement in favour of the son of Karuppiah Padayachi’s brother by name Kandaswamy. The defendant is Maruthayee’s brother’s son. On 30.5.1956, Karuppiah Padayachi, the original owner of the property, executed a settlement in favour of his wife Maruthayee. Subsequently, as three was no issue for them both of them executed a settlement on 12. 1974 in favour of Murugesan. The said settlement was not acted upon. On 4. 1980 Karupiah Padayachi and Maruthayee cancelled the settlement deed dated 12. 1974. In 1983, Karuppiah Padayachi died. On 7. 1983 Maruthayee sold the property to the plaintiff for Rs.3,800. Since the defendant attempted to interfere with the property the plaintiff has filed this suit.

4. In the written statement, the defendant contended that pursuant to the settlement dated 12. 1974, the defendant was in the enjoyment of the suit property. He has transferred the patta in his name. The cancellation deed is not valid. As per the settlement, they have lost their right. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff dated 7. 1983 is not valid. The plaintiff has stealthily removed the patta and the sale deed from the house of the defendant. The plaintiff has no right. Hence the suit has to be dismissed.

5. The trial court has dismissed the suit.

6. The lower appellate court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court and decreed the suit. Hence, the second appeal.

7. The main contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that after the settlement was ex- ecuted and after it has been accepted, there is no question of revocation. The revocation is invalid.

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent vehemently contended that there was no delivery of possession and hence the document namely the settlement deed was not acted upon. Hence the revocation was valid.

.9. In the settlement Ex.A-3 itself it is stated that that patta was transferred in the name of Murugesan and possession was handed over to him. It is also stated that as there was no legal heir to the executors and as the settlee happens to be the son of the brother-in-law of the first party, and as they had love and affection, the settlement has been executed. Ex.A-3 is the settlement deed. Ex.A.4 is the revocation deed. In Ex.A-4, reason given is that he was not providing maintenance. The gift is in favour of a minor, the settlors are close relations of the settlee.

.10. The requirement under Sec. 123 of the Transfer of Property Act is that for the gift of immovable property, the transfer must be affected by a registered instrument. The gift deed must be attested by two witnesses. These two aspects are not disputed in this case. But, what is disputed is that there was no handing over of possession of property. Sec. 122 of the Transfer of Property Act is as follows:

.“The transfer of certain existing movable or immovable property made voluntarily and without consideration by one person, called the donor, to another, called the donee, and accepted by or on behalf of the donee.”

11. A reading of the said section shows that the ingredients required for valid gift on a transfer of immovable property voluntarily without consideration and it must be accepted by and on behalf of the donee. The settlors themselves have indicated their in-tention to make the gift. In this case, the donee is a minor, As seen above, and patta was also transferred. The physical delivery of the property gifted is not contemplated. What is contemplated is the acceptance by donee or on behalf of the donee. In the case of minor, when a gift is made, the acceptance by the donee is implied. For example, when gift is made to a child or a baby, when the donors categorically convey their intention to make a gift, it would impl