Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.

1. The question that has been argued in these second appeals bears almost exclusively on the construction of a document bearing date 25th June 1908 and marked as Ex. A in the case. The question is whether, having regard to the terms of the document and the various clauses therein, it must be held as a document made by the executant to have operation inter vivos and immediately and, therefore, irrevocable in its nature, or whether it was of an ambulatory character being merely a testamentary document and therefore revocable. We heard arguments at great length on both sides. We have also carefully considered all the terms and clauses in the document, the original of which is in the Tamil language and character. It may at once be stated that the solution of the question is not entirely free from difficulty, but at the same time we can only do the best and arrive at the conclusion that appears to be the most reasonable, having regard not only to the (terms of the document, but to all the circumstances in which the document was brought about. After having carefully and anxiously considered the arguments on both sides, we have come to the conclusion that the