The only question in this Second Appeal is whether there was a valid gift of the A schedule property in favour of the first defendant-appellant. The gift was by her mother, the first plaintiff by a deed dated 7th September, 1949. The first plaintiff had three daughters, the first defendant, one Fathima and another Sharfunnissa Begum. She by that document purported to make a gift of several schedules of properties to each of the donees of whom the first defendant was one subject to a provision that each of the donees will have to secure maintenance to the donor in a certain form. The recital in the document was to the effect that the donor was in possession and that she put the donee, in this case the first defendant, in possession of the A schedule property. Apparently due to misunderstanding the first plaintiff purported to cancel the gift, in so far as it related to the first defendant, on 23rd Tune, 1958 and later gave away the A schedule property for charities under another document dated 25th June, 1958. Having done that, the first plaintiff came to Court for a declaration of title and permanent injunction restraining the first defendant from interference. Both the Cour