A mistake or error justifying a review under Order 47, Rule 1, is most often an error of fact and may in certain cases be one of law also. But in all cases it should be an error of inadvertence; in the case of an error of law it should not have been arrived at by a process of conscious reasoning and the correction suggested or asked for should be such that a bare statement carries conviction without further reasoning or extraneous matter.

ORDER:- This is an application to review the judgment and decree passed by Alagiriswami, J. in S.A. No.1048 of 1966. Before I deal with the application, I shall set out the facts giving rise to the above second appeal.

2. The suit is for possession. The plaintiff's case is that the suit property originally belonged to one Kamakshi Ammal, widow of one Thangaraju alias Sappani Pillai, that she was the divided brother's widow, that due to affection towards the plaintiff she executed a settlement deed on 22-1-1948 settling the properties mentioned therein, including the suit items, in favour of the plaintiff, that under the settlement deed the plaintiff got right in all the properties including the suit items, that the right to possession in favour of the plaintiff was, however, postponed till after the lifetime of the settlor, that the settlor Kamakshi Annual died on 17-3-1963, and that the plaintiff became entitled to take possession of the suit properties and enjoy the same absolutely. The further case of the plaintiff is that the defendant fraudulently prevailed upon the said Kamakshi Ammal to execute a sale deed in respect of the suit property in his favour on 23-9-1960, that the sale deed is sham, void and invalid document and that the defendant who trespassed into the suit property after the death of Kamakshi Ammal is bound to hand over possession to the plaintiff. The present suit has been filed for the aforesaid relief.

3. The defendant filed a written statement contending that a mere reading of the document dated 22-1-1948 executed by Kamakshi Ammal will show that it is a testamentary disposition operative after her death, that no right in praesenti was created in favour of the plaintiff, that the document was registered as a will, that the recitals in the document show that the testator preserved her rights to revoke the document, that she executed the sale deed during her lifetime in favour of the defendant of some of the properties covered by the deed dated 22-1-1948, that the rest of the properties comprised in the deed were settled by a further document dated 16-1-1960, and that all these circumstances would indicate that the deed in question is a will and not a settlement.

4. The trial court went into the matter fully and held that the disposition in question is a testamentary disposition. In the result the suit was dismissed. The plaintiff filed A.S.60 of 1966 to the Subordinate Judge of Tiruchirapalli. The learned Subordinate Judge reversed the decision of the trial court and decreed the suit as prayed for. The defendant filed the second appeal No.1048 of 1966 to this court. The learned Judge, by his judgment dated 15-6-1970, dismissed the appeal holding that the document is not testamentary in character. The defendant has filed the above application to review the judgment of the learned Judge.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to numerous decisions laying down various tests in determining whether a document is a will or settlement. The principal decisions referred to by him are: Thakur Ishri Singh v. Thakur Baldeo Sing, (1884) ILK 10 Cal 792 PC, Reference by the Collector of Stamps, Bombay (1896) ILR 20 Bom 210 at p 214; Rajammal v. Authiammal, (1910) ILR 33 Mad 304; Venkatachalam v. Govindaswami, 46 Mad LJ 288 : (AIR 1924 Mad 605); Md. Abdul Ghani v. Fakhr Johan Begum, 44 All 301 PC : (AIR 1922 PC 281); Gangaraju v. Somappa, AIR 1927 Mad 197; Ignatio Britt v. Rego, 64 Mad LJ 650 : (AIR 1933 Mad 492) and Veerabadrayya v. Setthamma, AIR 1940 Mad 236. It is unnecessary to deal with each of the above decisions. These decisions however lay down certain broad tests all of which have to be taken into account in ascertaining the principal intention of the parties: (1) the name by which the document is styled, (2) the registration of the document, (3) reservation of life estate in favour of the testator, (4) express words as to when possession passed; (5) use of the present or future tense in the d