Varadachariar, J.

1. This is an unfortunate case but we see no way of upholding the principal contentions of the appellant before us. She sued for possession of her husbands properties on the footing that her husband had died intestate. The defendants pleaded that the plaintiffs husband had executed a will Ex. II on 27th August, 1910, whereby the properties referred to in the will had been given to one Subadramma the then living wife of the deceased for her lifetime and after her death to the contesting defendants.

2. The plaintiff questioned the genuineness of the will but the lower Court has rightly held that the evidence in its favour is such as to place its genuineness beyond doubt. This finding has not been seriously attacked before us.

3. It was next suggested that as the testator lived for nearly 20 years after the date of Ex. II, lost his first wife in the meanwhile, married another wife, viz., the plaintiff and acquired properties subsequent to the date of the will, the Court must draw the inference that the will of 1910 must have been revoked. It is true that no particular formality is necessary under the law in the mofussal for showing an intention to revoke a will,