JUDGMENT Maclean, C.J. - The only question that we have to decide on this appeal is whether the document executed by one Chowdhry Khirodhar Lal, dated the 16th October 1893, is or is not a Will. The Court below has held that it is a Will and has granted letters of administration to the Respondent with the Will annexed. The appeal is from that decision. It seems to me, when one looks at the document, that it is very difficult to say that it is a Will. In fact, the Judge of the Court below says that it "was a family arrangement arrived at to put an end to disputes, the terms of which were embodied in an ekrarnamah." If it was a family arrangement, it is a little difficult to see how it is a Will. An agreement is not a Will. If we look to the recitals in the document, we find it recited that certain members of the family were bent upon creating disputes and whereas a dispute was calculated to cause a great loss and injury to the properties, therefore the declarant, with a view to avoid future disputes, did execute this ekrarnamah. Now, if this document were a Will, it could have but little effect in settling disputes, as it might be revoked the next day. One of the tests in these cases is to ascertain whether the document is revocable or not. That is a primary test. As Lord Penzance says In the goods of Robinson L. R. 1 P. & D. 385 at p. 387 (1867), "there are some tests which are applied in every case when it question is raised as to the testamentary character of a paper. One of these invariable tests is whether the paper is revocable. Apply that test and I think that this application must fail on the ground that the instrument in question is irrevocable in all its parts." Now if we look at paragraph 14 of the document in question, it is clear that it is irrevocable. The 14th paragraph does not apply, as suggested by the learned vakil for the Respondent, only to paragraph 4 of the document but to the whole document. The irrevocability of the document is perfectly inconsistent with its being a Will. There is the further fact that it was registered as a non-testamentary document and was stamped. The 14th paragraph does not apply, as suggested by the learned vakil for the Respondent, only to paragraph 4 of the document but to the whole document. The irrevocability of the document is perfectly inconsistent with its being a Will. There is the further fact that it was registered as a non-testamentary document and was stamped. This shows that the parties did not regard the document as a Will. The Court below has relied upon the Privy Council of Thakur Ishri Singh v. Thakur Buldo Singh I. L. R. 10 Cal. 792 (1884) that there was nothing to show that the document was irrevocable, and it was registered as a Will. In these circumstances I think that this appeal must be allowed and the application for letters of administration dismissed with costs both here and in the Court below. We assess the hearing fee in this Court at 10 gold mohurs. Mitra, J. I am of the same opinion. It appears from the recital in the deed that Chowdhry Khirodhar Lal and Chowdhry Kusal Narayan were brothers. Kusal Narayan died in 1892. Shortly afterwards, disputes arose apparently on the question whether the two brothers had been joint or separate. Kusal Narain had a widow Piar Koer and a daughter Kesar Koer. The dispute was settled and settled as a family arrangement by this deed executed with the consent of the widow and the daughter of Kusal Narayan and it contains a disposition of the family property during the lifetime of the executant Khirodhar Lal; and, after his death, possession was to be taken by the two branches of the family as if they had been separate during the lifetime of Khirodhar Lal. Such a document is certainly not a Will.