A joint will can be revoked by one of the executants if there is no evidence of a reciprocal arrangement or mutuality of benefits between the executants that would lead to the conclusion that the will was irrevocable.

GURTU, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a first appeal which arises out of a petition for the grant of letters of administration to the applicants, namely, Surendra Bala and Suresh Chandra who are respondents in this appeal, or for probate. The petitioners stated in their petition that Pandit Kuar Lal and his wife Smt. Ram pyari duly executed a will dated the 15th of November, 1941, in respect of property owned by them. This will was duly registered on the 17th of November, 1941. Pandit Kuar Lal, who was the husband of Ram Pyari, died on the 18th of January, 1942 at firozabad, and Smt. Ram Pyari died on the 11th of December, 1945, at Agra. The petitioners claimed to be legatees under the said will and entitled to obtain letters of administration.

( 2 ) WE may note that in the first instance the petitioners merely prayed for the grant of a pro-bate, but ultimately by an amendment an alternative prayer for the grant of letters of administration to the petitioners was made. Notices were issued and a caveat was filed by one Pandit Bhawani prasad, who is the appellant here. Pandit Bhawani Prasad is the brother of Pandif Kuar Lal. Surendra Bala is the niece of Smt. Ram Pyari, and Suresh Chandra is Surendra Balas son.

( 3 ) SHORTLY put the position taken up by Pandit Bhawani Prasad the appellant, was that the aforesaid will dated the 15th of November, 1941, stood revoked by a deed of gift dated the 14th of November, 1942 executed by the surviving Mst. Ram Pyari, after the death of her husband, in favour of Bhawani Prasad. The caveator inter alia pleaded that Smt. Ram Pyari was the owner of the house devised by the will, which was her stridhan property, and she was also the owner along with Kuar Lal of the deposits on which, the will also operates.

( 4 ) ON these pleadings the parties went to issue.

( 5 ) THE court below found that the will in question has been established as being the duly executed last will and testament of the executants Kuar Lal and Ram Pyari, and was brought into existence-without coercion or undue influence. It found that the petition was not barred by Order ii, Rule 2, C. P. C. , or by estoppel. Jt also held that the will dated the 15th of November, 1941, could not in law be deemed to have been revoked by the deed of gift dated the 14th of november, 1942, in favour of Bhawani Prasad and others.

( 6 ) IN this appeal by Bhawani Prasad only one matter was raised before us, namely, that the learned probate court had erred in holding that the will did not stand revoked by the deed of gift.

( 7 ) WE may mention that the view taken by the court below on the question of revocation was that the will in question, being a joint will, could not be cancelled by one executant alone (relying upon the judgment of Lord Camden in the case of Dufour v. Pereira, (1769) 21 ER 332 ). In dufours case, (1769) 21 ER 332, the Court gave a decision against revocation. It observed that the wife had proved the will after the death of the husband and had obtained benefit thereunder and that, therefore, it was not in any case in her power by making another will to revoke the will which she had executed along with, her husband.

( 8 ) THE contention rightly advanced before us by learned counsel for the appellant was that the case cited by the learned court below and the cases, which follow that case were cases where the will in question was the result of some sort of a contract and the mutual devices in favour of the husband by the wife and in favour of the wife by the husband were the result of a reciprocal arrangement; and the contention was that in the present case there was no evidence whatsoever that there was any reciprocal arrangement which led to the drawing up of the will of Kuar Lal and his wife Ram Pyari on the 15th of November, 1941. It was also contended that no arrangement could be spell-ed out from the language used in the will aforesaid.

( 9 ) ON the other side, the contention has been advanced that there was evidence of circumstances to estab