the case, at least two of the coowners knew of Ext.A2 before, and the defendant, the donee, under Ext.B1 settlement deed, at least from the date of execution of Ext.B1. To get the cancellation of Ext.A2 the plaintiff was bound to prove the special circumstances, if any, establishing that there was no acceptance of the Ext.A2 gift by the defendant. Not only that no such circumstance was pleaded in the plaint to prove the nonacceptance of the gift no material whatsoever was placed even to show that the donee despite knowing of the gift would not have accepted the deed in her favour. Remittance of building tax or revenue charges, as evidenced by Ext.A4 and A5 series, by the plaintiff has least significance and value where it is shown that he is the eldest member of the family and, further, an occupant in the building situate in the property which remained undivided under the enjoyment of all the coowners as tenants in common. Oral evidence tendered by the plaintiff as PW1 and PW2, his brother, the attesting witness, in Ext.A2 settlement deed, who later got back that deed from the Sub Registry Office, that the settlement deed in favour of the defendant has not been accepted by her cannot be given any merit or value when the facts and circumstances establish in unerring terms that she knew of the
