Ask @ Chandu to reply on what you are asking me as clarification, as I donot give such remedies to either gender queries here and also read para 2 of my reply.
Your quote from your own facts before us; “My father has executed a registered irrevocable & unconditional gift deed in favour of my brother XXX” + “My father has inserted a clause mentioning 'son's are taking due care of him in old age, he is satisfied & happy with them, hence gifting his property” interpreted in court as in blue below and rest of interpretation of Law is detailed below
Gift of immovable property: Where a gift is made to several persons and one of the donee does not accept the gift, only that particular gift becomes void and gifts to all other donees will be valid ref.: S. 125, Chapter VII, Transfer of Property Act, 1882).
A gift in which the parties agree that the same shall be revocable wholly or in part at the mere will of the donor is void wholly or partly as the case may be. In other words, the donor cannot be given the right to revoke a gift at his own will and pleasure.
However, if the gift provides that it can be revoked on the happening of a specified event which does not depend on the will of the donor, the gift can be revoked or suspended by the donor.
A gift can be revoked in all cases where any contract can be revoked except for lack of consideration.
In other words, in all cases where a contract can be avoided or revoked under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a gift can be revoked by the donor on these grounds. In most cases, it is done only on the grounds of undue influence and fraud committed on the donor to make the gift.
In this regard, the term `undue influence' means that the influence over the donor by another person is of a coercive nature which forces the donor to act against his own will and willingness in making gifts. `Fraud,' on the other hand, suggests concealment of facts, misrepresentation of facts and some other camouflage to obtain certain benefits.
The charge of undue influence and/or fraud is in the nature of criminal charge which must be pleaded clearly and proved by cogent and reliable evidence.
Except in the above cases, a gift once made cannot be revoked.
However, where a gift is made irrevocable by specific recitals in the Deed of Gift itself, such a gift cannot be revoked by the donor under any circumstances.
Law re-visited in case in hand:
In the 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.
Subsequently the donors revoked
In the case of Vannathi Valappil Janaki vs. Puthiya Purayil Paru [AIR 1986 Kerala 110], the donors were real uncles of the donees who were minor children.
the gift on the ground that the donees were not bestowing proper love and affection on the donors which might endanger their future safety. The High Court of Allahabad on these facts inferred and came
to the conclusion that the gift deed in favour of the minor children was definitely accepted or else there would have been mention in the
revocation deed that the revocation was necessitated because the children no longer bestowed love and care on the donors. The relevant observations of the High Court deserve to be quoted:-
"When the gift of immovable property is not onerous, only slight evidence is sufficient for establishing the fact of acceptance by the donee. When it is shown that the donee had knowledge of the gift it is only normal to assume that the donee had accepted the gift because the acceptance would only promote his own interest. Mere silence may sometimes be indicative of acceptance provided it is shown that the donee knew about the gift. No express acceptance is necessary for completing a gift. Where the donors who were the real uncles of the donees stated in the deed of revocation that to allow the continued existence of the gift would endanger their future safety as the donees were not bestowing proper love and affection towards the donors which was expected by the donors from the donees as a recompense for the gift, that statement is clear indication that the gift had been accepted by the donees."
[Last reply on this thread from my end as I rarely exceed self bandwiddth limits unless I feel I need to interject myself in same query again]