( 1 ) THIS is a defts appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration that a certain deed of gift was void and for possession. The facts briefly stated are these.

( 2 ) DUNGAR Singh, the pltf.-resp. , and his wife owned the property in dispute. Both the old persons were issueless and were in search of some one who could look after them and support and maintain them in their old age and to whom they might transfer the property which they possessed. The defts.-applts. , husband and wife, persuaded the pltf.-resp. to transfer the property to them and promised that they would Support him in his old age. Accordingly on 23-12-1943, two documents were executed, (1) Ex. P-1, a registered deed by Dungar Singh in favour of the defts.-applts. , and (2) Ex. P-2, an unregistered agreement whereby it was agreed that the donees would maintain Dungar Singh and his wife till their death and would perform their obsequies on their deaths, and that in case they failed to do so Dungar Singh might revoke the deed of gift or, in the alternative, obtain maintenance allowance. This deed of agreement was signed by Jagat singh, applt. 1, alone and not by his wife. After sometime parties quarrelled and the pltf.-resp. filed the suit which has given rise to this appeal alleging that the defts.-applts. had failed to support him and his wife as agreed to by them and that therefore he had revoked the deed of gift and was entitled to seek a declaration that the deed of gift was null and void and no longer binding upon him. He also claimed relief for possession over the property comprised in the deed of gift.

( 3 ) IN the written statement which was filed on behalf of both the applts. it was admitted that the agreement was no doubt executed but it was alleged that they had not failed to maintain the pltf.-resp. and his wife, and that, in any case, according to the terms of the agreement the pltf. was not entitled to revoke the deed but was entitled only to recover amount of maintenance. In the plaint the pltf. had stated that both the defts. had entered into the agreement. In the written statement this fact was not denied. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defts.-applts. has conceded that in view of the pleadings it was not open to him to place any reliance upon the fact that the agreement was not signed by applt 2. This point, therefore, need not detain us any further. This two main issues arose in the case; (1) Whether the defts. had failed to maintain the pltf. and his wife and (2) whether, if the answer to the first issue was in the affirmative, the pltf. was entitled to revoke the deed of gift and recover possession over the property. A subsidiary point in connection with the second issue also arose, namely, whether the agreement could be admitted in evidence as it was un-registered. Both the Cts. below decided that the defts.-applts. failed to maintain the pltf. and his wife as agreed to by them in the deed of agreement Ex. P2; that the deed of agreement, though unregistered, was admissible in evidence and lastly, that the pltf. was entitled to revoke the deed of gift and therefore to recover possession over the property in suit.

( 4 ) IN this second appeal learned counsel has conceded that the deed of agreement, standing by itself, did not require registration and could be received in evidence but has urged that if it was part of the transaction of the gift it required registration and could not be received in evidence. He has further urged that the deed of gift not having contained the clause about the power of revocation could not be revoked.

( 5 ) THE deed of gift recites the promise of the donees that they would support the donor and his wife. The agreement having been executed on the same day on which the deed of gift was executed it must be held that both the documents formed part of one transaction. The finding of both the Cts. below to the same effect is quite correct.

( 6 ) IF the deed of gift and the agreement formed part