The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity of the Will executed by the deceased and the revocation of the earlier Will and Codicil. The court's decision was influenced by the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, particularly Section 70, which governs the revocation of unprivileged Wills or Codicils.

Plaintiff, as petitioner, moved O.P.5699/1988 for Letters of Administration with Will dated 18-7-1974, executed by deceased Smt. Martha David Tharakan attached toil. Legatees under the Will and all the legal heirs left behind by the deceased were made respondents 1 to 10 in that petition. When notice was issued to the respondents, 4th respondent, one of the daughters of the deceased, filed caveats opposing the grant of Letters of Administration. She also filed affidavit in support of her contentions. Since affidavit in support of the caveat has been filed and notice of the same was given to the petitioner in the Original Petition, the proceedings have been ordered to be numbered as a suit, as provided by R.26 of the Rules under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, Appendix XII to the Civil Rules of Practice, Kerala. Petitioner in the Original Petition is the plaintiff and the 4th respondent, caveat or, the defendant.

2. Material averments made by the plaintiff are to the following effect.-Smt. Martha David Tharakan had a fixed place of abode at Ernakulam. Her properties are situated in Ernakulam and Maradu Villages of Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District and at Bangalore in Karnataka State. She passed away on 5-6-1982. She had executed her last Will and Testament on 18-7-1974. It was drawn up, signed and executed by her by complying with all the formalities contemplated by the Indian Succession Act. It was prepared in triplicate. Deceased signed all the three in the presence of two attestors, namely Advocate Sri. George C.P. Tharakan and Sri.C.1. Jim. Attestors saw testatrix signing the Will and testatrix in her turn witnessed the two attestors signing the same. Plaintiff is the son of the deceased and one among the legatees named in the Will. No application has been presented in any Court for probate of any of the Will of the deceased or for Letters of Administration with or without any Will annexed to it, in respect of the properties left behind by deceased Martha David Tharakan.

3. Smt. Martha David Tharakan had executed a Will on 9-4-1967 by complying with all the requirements of law. It was in her own handwriting. She signed the same in the presence of two attestors, namely Advocate Sri.E.V. Mathew, her own brother, and Dr. Chacko George, the son of her elder sister. These attestors had seen Smt. Martha David Tharakan signing the Will and she saw the attestors affixing their signatures as attestors. There was a Codicil attached to that Will. It was executed on 31-7-1969. That was also executed by complying with all the provisions of law. Advocate Sri. E.V. Mathew and his wife Annamma Mathew were the attestors to that Codicil.

4. The Will executed oh 18-7-1974 was deposited with Advocate Sri.CP. George Tharakan. Mrs. Martha David Tharakan got back that Will. In February, 1982 when she had to be taken to a hospital at Kolencherry, she handed over the same to the plaintiff along with the Will executed in 1967 and the Codicil of 1969. Mrs. Martha David Tharakan expired on 5-6-1982 at the age of 83 years. On coming to know of the death, defendant reached Ernakulam from Goa at about 5.45 P.M. on 6-6-1982. The funeral was held at 6.00 P.M. on that day. Defendant and her elder son, Vinod, slept in the house occupied by the deceased, on 6th night. In the morning of 7-6-1982, defendant made a request to the plaintiff's wife for the keys of the house and the almirahs. The keys were handed over to her. Since then, the house, where Mrs. Martha David Tharakan lived, was occupied by the defendant till she left for Goa. Deceased was keeping her valuables and documents in a locked drawer of an almirah in her house. The key of that drawer was used to be placed in the almirah itself. Plaintiff, his wife and nursing aids attending on the deceased had occasion to open that almirah on several occasions, while deceased was in the hospital. There was no document or cover in the shelves of the almirah during that period. None was found in th