The presumption of revocation of a will is a rebuttable one and can be rebutted by the slightest possible evidence direct or circumstantial.

1. This judgment shall dispose of R. S. A. Nos. 1651 of 1975, 209 of 1976 and Civil Revision No. 1771 of 1976.

2. Briefly the facts are that Smt. Kishan Kaur was the owner of the property in dispute. She made a will dt. 13th Mar., 1964 bequeathing land measuring 36 Kanals 5 Marias to Sunder Singh for lifetime with a condition that it would revert to Gurdwara Manji Sahib and Darbar Sahib, Amritsar in equal shares after his death and the remaining land to the aforesaid Gurdwara Manji Sahib and Darbar Sahib in equal shares. Smt. Kishan Kaur died on 22nd Dec., 1969. It is alleged that Nishabar Singh defendant 1 had taken possession of the property illegally. Consequently a suit for possession was filed praying that a decree for possession be passed, half in favour of the plaintiff and half in favour of Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, defendant 2. Sunder Singh was impleaded as defendant 3.

3. The suit was contested by Nishabar Singh who denied the allegations of the plaintiff and pleaded that Smt. Kishan Kaur did not execute any will in favour of Manji Sahib, Karnal or Darbar Sahib, Amritsar. On the other hand she had executed a will dt. 16th Dec., 1969 in his favour. It was further pleaded that Sewa Singh had no locus standi to institute the suit on behalf of the plaintiff. Defendant 2 filed a separate written statement supporting the claim of the plaintiff and further pleading that decree for half of the land be passed in its favour. Sunder Singh died during the pendency of the suit.

4. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :

1. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit?

2. Whether Kishan Kaur made any valid will on 13-3-1964 in favour of the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3? If so, to what effect?

3. Whether Kishan Kaur deceased made a valid and legal will on 16-12-1969 in favour of defendant 1? If so, to what effect?

4. Relief.

Later an additional issue was framed which was numbered as 2-A and is as follows :

If issue No. 2 is proved, whether Smt.Kishan Kaur had revoked, cancelled, destroyed the impugned will during her lifetime?

5. The trial Court held that the plaintiff had the locus standi to file the suit that Smt. Kishan Kaur made a valid will dt. 13th Mar.,1964 and that the will dt. 16th Dec., 1969 in favour of defendant 1 did not stand proved. It further held that Smt. Kishan Kaur did not cancel or destroy the will dt. 13th Mar., 1964. Consequently the suit was decreed by it in favour of the plaintiff with regard to whole of the property. Defendant 1 went up in appeal before the Additional District Judge.

6. During the pendency of the appeal defendant 2 filed an application in the trial Court under Ss.151 and 152 of the Civil P.C. for amendment of the decree on 24th Jan. 1975 praying that the decree be amended and a decree for half of the property be passed in its favour. It dismissed the application on 5th Dec., 1975 on the ground that the appeal had been decided by the first appellate Court and the decree of the trial Court had merged in that decree. Defendant 1 has come up in Civil Revision No. 1771 of 1976 against this order.

7. The Additional District Judge affirmed the findings of the trial Court on all the issues but held that the plaintiff was not entitled to half of the property. Consequently he partly accepted the appeal, modified the decree of the trial Court and passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff-respondent regarding half of the property and dismissed the suit regarding the other half. Two appeals have been filed, one by Nishabar Singh defendant 1 (R.S.A.No. 1651 of 1975) and the other by Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee and another (R.S.A. No. 209 of 1976).

8. The cases were listed before me on 9th Sept., 1985. On that day a contention was raised by Mr. Anand Swaroop that it had not been proved that Sewa Singh who instituted the suit on behalf of the plaintiff was authorised to instituted it. In view of the pleadings of the parties I