1) Section 126 specifies circumstances under
which a gift can be suspended or revoked :-
"126. When gift may be suspended or revoked. The
donor and donee may agree that on the happening of any
specified event which does not depend on the will of the
donor a gift shall be suspended or revoked; but a gift which
the parties agree shall be revocable wholly or in part, at the
mere will of the donor, is void wholly or in part, as the case
may be.
A gift may also be revoked in any of the cases (save want or
failure of consideration) in which, if it were a contract, it
might be rescinded.
2) Section 127 throws light on the question of validity of transfer
of property by gift to a minor. It recognises minor's capacity to
accept the gift without intervention of guardian, if it is possible, or
through him.
"127. Onerous gifts Where a gift is in the form of a single
transfer to the same person of several things of which one is,
and the others are not burdened by an obligation, the donee
can take nothing by the gift unless he accepts it fully.
Where a gift is in the form of two or more separate and
independent transfers to the same person of several things,
the donee is at liberty to accept one of them and refuse the
others, although the former may be beneficial and the latter
onerous.
Onerous gift to disqualified person. A donee not
competent to contract and accepting property burdened by
any obligation is not bound by his acceptance. But if, after
becoming competent to contract and being aware of the
obligation, he retains the property given, he becomes so
bound."
The last part of Section 127, underlined above, clearly indicates
that a minor donee, who can be said to be in law incompetent to
contract under Section 11 of the Contract Act is, however,
competent to accept a non onerous gift. Acceptance of an onerous gift, however, cannot bind the minor. If he accepts the gift during his minority of a property burdened with obligation and on attaining majority does not repudiate but retains it, he would be bound by the obligation attached to it.
3) case of Sundar Bai vs. Anandi Lal [AIR 1983
Allahabad 23], the donee was a child and in the care of the donor
himself. The High Court held that in such circumstance, express
acceptance could not be insisted upon. In the case of Ponnuchami Servai vs. Balasubramanian [AIR 1982 Madras 281], the father himself was the donor and executed a gift deed in favour of his minor son. The parties continued to stay together in the said property even after the gift. In these circumstances it was held that the gift in favour of the minor would be deemed to have been accepted as the father himself was the guardian and had himself executed the gift-deed.