The main legal point established in the judgment is that under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, Section 213, if the terms of the later Will indicate an intention to dispose of the property in a different manner from the former Will, the earlier Will stands revoked.

1. In this appeal two alleged testamentary papers of one Vankatachalam Pillai, deceased, who died on 26th August 1914 are in question. They are dated, respectively, 24th January 1913 and 2nd January 1914 and are marked Exhibits A-1 and A. The latter is propounded by a minor Kailasam Pillai, son of Venkatachalam, by a concubine of his, Velliammai by name. This Kaillasam Pillai applied to the District Court of South Arcot for leave to prove A and for the issue to him of Letters of Administration with this Will annexed A-1, the alleged earlier Will, is propounded by respondents Nos. 3 and 4, who are two of the three sons of Thillainayagam Pillai, brother of the testator, who was adopted into another family. The learned District Judge found for the genuineness of both these papers, A and A-3, and admitted them both to Probate. He also found that the earlier Will was not revoked by the later. Letters of Administration were granted jointly to the widow of deceased (respondent No. 2) and respondents Nos. 3 and 4.

2. Three questions are raised on this appeal.

(1) The genuineness of the Wills.

(2) The revocation of the earlier by the later.

(3) Inferential intention to revoke.

3. As to the first point, Mr. A. Krishnaswamy Iyer for the appellants, the divided brother of the testator and his son, frankly stated that be could not say the Wills were forgeries, i, e., were not in the handwriting of the testator. We think it sufficient to say that we are satisfied from the evidence that the Wills A 1 and A are in the handwriting of the testator, We were then asked to refuse Letters of Administration on the ground that the history of the custody of these two documents was not satisfactory and was not such as to remove all doubt as to their genuineness. The story of the concubine, who is the only witness who saw the testator write and sign the Wills, is that the two Wills were given to her. After the death she put them into a box and gave them to her servant from whom 5th respondent took the Wills. Fifth respondent is the third of the sons of Thillainayagam Pillai mentioned above. There is evidence that after cremation the 3rd and 5th defendants and one Vadivelu Pillai (P. W. No. 2) and Monigar Rattan Pillai (P. W. No. 4) met, and opened the box and took out the Wills and read them. The Wills were actually produced by Vadivelu, Pillai in the Court of the District Munsif of Mannargudi in Original Suit No. 47 of 1915 filed by Valliammai to recover these Wills and other documents. On the other hand, 1st respondents (1st appellant here) account is that deceased gave him a box containing mortgage and other documents and that when the testator died there was no box by his side as described by the plaintiffs witnesses. The District Judge who has examined the evidence with care has come to the conclusion that the account given by 1st appellant cannot be accepted and a further examination of the evidence does not lead us to a different conclusion. We, therefore, agree with the District Judge that there is no reason why these paper writings, A and A-1, should not be received as the testamentary papers of the deceased.

4. The 3rd point was not argued and we are not prepared to say that inferential intention to revoke, i. e., any conclusive evidence of such intention derived from evidence of surrounding circumstances apart altogether from any inference to be derived from the provisions in the documents them. salves, is in any way established. If there is in fast an intention to revoke the earlier Will by the later it must be gathered from inferences drawn from the documents themselves.

5. This leads us to the second point which was argued at length before us. A somewhat detailed examination of the two Wills will be necessary. The earlier one (A-1) was in favour of Ramaswami Chetty, the executor who renounced. It begins: "As I feel weak often and as the Wills previously written by me are not operative, this Will containing the following dispositions shall