A gift cannot be revoked for failure of consideration unless there is an agreement between the donor and the donee that on the happening of a specified event which does not depend on the will of the donor of the gift, it shall be suspended or revoked.

S. BARMAN, J.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff is the appellant, in this second appeal, from a decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Cuttack, whereby he allowed in part, an appeal from the decision or the learned Munsif, Cuttack and decreed the plaintiff's suit with certain conditions.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff is the daughter-in-law of the defendant, as appears from a short genealogical table set out below-Mana Bawa first Wife=natbar (dead)=tila Bewa (Plaintiff)

( 3 ) ON May 10, 1951, the defendant mother-in-law gifted away the suit lands in favour of the plaintiff daughter-in-law, by a registered deed of gift (Ext. 1 ). Until 1953, the plaintiff remained in possession of the suit lands and lived with her husband Natabar who died in 1953, After Natabar's death, the plaintiff lived with the defendant mother-in-law till 1954. In 1954, the plaintiff having been neglected by the mother-in-law she (plaintiff) left for her father's house. Thereafter the plaintiff a applied for mutation in respect of the suit lands. On May 31, 1954 the defendant mother-in-law executed a deed of cancellation of the gift deed (Ext. A ). Thereafter on September 19, 1954, this suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title and possession in respect of the suit lands. The defendant mother-in-law's defence,--as taken in the suit, shortly stated--is this; her son natabar's first wife, after marriage, did not come to live with him. Thereafter the defendant got her son married to plaintiff; during the marriage negotiations, the defendant executed the deed of gift, in order to induce the plaintiff to come and live with her son; that the deed off gift was not acted upon; that it was a conditional gift to the plaintiff on condition that the plaintiff will maintain the defendant; the plaintiff having failed to maintain the defendant, she (defendant),-according to her,--is entitled to revoke the deed of gift and accordingly she cancelled the deed of gift by Ext. A : further that the plaintiff having re-married, she is not entitled to the property under the deed of gift.

( 4 ) THE trial Court found that the gift was genuine and valid; that the gift was accepted by the plaintiff through her husband who then was alive; that she was entitled to the suit lands, even after the plaintiff's remarriage; and accordingly the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff. In appeal the learned lower appellate court found that there was no clause for revocation of the gift under any contingency; that the (plaintiff carried on the Seva of the defendant till her husband's death; that the plaintiff had remarreid; that there was no fraud, coercion, undue influence, misake or mis-representation in executing the deed of gift in favour of the plaintiff; the defendant accepted the terms of the gift; that the defendant knew fully well the terms when executing the deed; that the transaction, was not a nominal nor make-believe; in fact it was acted upon; that the deed of gift cannot thus be revoked; that the plaintiffs title to the suit property as property gifted to her by the defendant, was declared with the condition that the defendant mother-in-law will remain in possession till her death; and accordingly the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff declaring the title in her favour but she will get (sic) possession during the life-time of the defendant. From this decision of the learned lower appellate Court this Second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff as the appellant. A cross-appeal was also filed by the defendant mother-in-law on the ground that the deed of gift was not valid because of undue influence, fraud and coercion.

( 5 ) THE points, urged on behalf of the plaintiff appellant, were that the document having been registered and attested as required under Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, the gift became complete; that it cannot be revoked unless there is an agreement between the donor and the donee that on the happening of a specified event which does no