R.N. Misra, J. - (1.)PLAINTIFFS are in appeal against the reversing judgment and decree of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Cuttack in a suit for permanent injunction to restrain Defendant No. 1 from disturbing Plaintiffs' possession over B schedule property.
(2.)PLAINTIFFS claimed that Plaintiff No. 1's father, Karunakar, and Defendant No. 1, Nandakishore, were brother living joint. Karunakar was serving in a liquor shop and Nandakishore was serving in an opium shop as salesmen. Out of their personal income, the two brothers had acquired jointly about 15 acres of land. When Karunakar died in the year 1955, Plaintiff No. 1 was looking after the cultivation in the village. Defendant No. 1's wife Pata died in the year 1953. As Nandakishore had no issue. Through Pata, Plaintiff No. 1 looked after Nandakishore and Nandakishore had, therefore, developed liking for him. On 29 -7 -1964, Defendant No. 1 gifted eight annas share of the property in favour of Plaintiff No. 1 and his minor son - the second Plaintiff. The subject matter of gift has been described in schedule B of the Plaintiff. The gift was accepted and was duly acted upon and Plaintiff No. 1 was looking after the entire property. Some persons ill -disposed of towards Plaintiff No. 1 prevailed upon Defendant No. 1 Nandakishore to create disturbance in the peaceful possession of the B schedule property and he started threatening that he would alienate the same to strangers. Nandakishore executed a deed of cancellation of the gift.
Defendant No. 1 denied the gift and claimed that after Pata's death, he had married twice. While the second wife dead, the third one is alive. As he was not pulling on well with his children born through the second and third wives, Defendant No. 1 had placed reliance on Plaintiff No. 1 who was extending help to him. In 1964, Plaintiff No. 1 asked Defendant No. 1 to execute a power of attorney in his favour so that he could look after the property. When in good faith Defendant No. 1 agreed to execute such document, a deed of gift was taken from him. After the gift was taken, Plaintiff No. 1 changed his behaviour and stopped sending usufructs from 1966 on various false pleas. Defendant No. 1 upon enquiry came to learn of the fraud played upon him and taking of the deed of gift. He accordingly cancelled the deed of gift in March, 1968 and took possession of the property and is now in possession through bhag tenants. It was further pleaded that Defendant No. 1 had, contrary to the terms of the deed of gift, made an alienation of a part of the gifted property. The proforma Defendants 2 and 3 have supported the Plaintiffs.

The trial Court found that the gift deed was genuine, valid and acted upon and was not conditional. Plaintiffs, therefore, had acquired good title to the property. Plaintiffs were also found to be in possession of the gifted property. Accordingly, the suit for permanent injunction was decreed.

(3.)IN appeal, it was claimed that the terms of the gift deed had not been properly interpreted and on a true construction of Ext. 4, the Court should have come to hold that it was an conditional document and the donee having not fulfilled the conditions, the document was liable for cancellation and had, I therefore, been rightly cancelled.
The learned Appellate Judge quoted the material portion of the deed of gift in his Judgment and came to hold that for non -fulfillment of the conditions by the donee, the gift was liable to be revoked and the donor who was entitled to revoke has revoked. Accordingly, he vacated the decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. This reversing decree is assailed in second appeal.