Bhagwati, J.

1. This is an originating summons taken out for the purpose of determining the effect of the revocation of a codicil by the testatrix on 27-3-1947. The testatrix made published her first will on 22-3-1934. Thereafter on 1-5-1939, she made published her second will (hereinafter referred to as "the second will") wherein she stated at the outset that she thereby revoked all wills, codicils other testamentary dispositions theretofore made by her declared that to be her last will testament. On 4-1-1944, she made published a first codicil to the second will she made published her seaond codicil to the second will on 28-2-1946, (hereinafter referred to as "the second codicil"). On 6-5-1946, she made published her third will on the very same day she cancelled by an endorsement written at the foot of the various documents, the first will, the first codicil to the second will the second codicil. In the third will which she made published on 6-5-1946, she again stated at the outset that she thereby revoked all wills, codicils other testamentary dispositions made by her declared that to be her last will testament. The effect of this third will therefore was to revoke all the earlier wills codicils which she had made published theretofore the third will was the only testamentary disposition which survived on 6.5-1946. Even though no endorsement of cancellation waa made on the second will as in the case of the first will the first the second codicils to the second will, the effect of the provision hereinbefore mentioned in the beginning of the third will was that the second will alao was revoked the third will remained the only testa-mentary disposition on 6-5-1946.

2. On 31-1-1947, the testatrix made published a document which she described as the third codicil to her "will dated 1-5-1939". She declared that document to be the third codicil to the second will. She revoked the bequest made by Clause (3) of the second will to Bachubai in all other respects she thereby confirmed her said will the second codicil thereto. All the parties appearing before me are agreed that the effect of this third codicil to the second will (hereinafter referred to as "the third codicil") made published on 31-1-1947, was that the second will the second codicil thereto were revived republished with the modification thereby effected, viz. the revocation of the bequest made by Clause (3) of the second will to Bachubai.

3. On 27-3-1947, the testatrix made an endorsement at the foot of the third codicil:--"I revoke this codicil" the question that has arisen before me is what is the effect of this revocation made on 27-3-1947. The pltf. is one of the sons of the testatrix the defts. are the daughter two other sons of the testatrix. The pltf. has contended that by the revocation of the third codicil the testatrix not only revoked that codicil but also revoked the second will the second codicil thereto which had been revived republished by that codicil that there was therefore an intestacy. Deft. 1, on the other hand, has contended that the revocation of the third codicil was effective only in so far as it revoked the codicil nothing further. It had not the effect of revoking the second will the second codicil thereto which had been revived re-published by the third codicil. She also contended that if the Ct. came to the conclusion that the revocation of the third codicil in the manner above mentioned had the effect of revoking the second will the second codicil thereto, the intention of the testatrix was certainly not to die intestate, but the revocation of the third oodicil had been made by her with an intention to revive the third will. If per chance the Ct. came to the conclusion that the third will could not be revived under the circumstances attendant upon the revocation of the third codicil, she invoked the doctrine of dependent relative revocation, contended that in