JUDGMENT : P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J. 1. Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 4 to 6 in a suit for partition are the appellants. 2. The suit property measuring 1 acre and 70 cents belonged to the parents of the plaintiffs. The parents of the plaintiffs had nine children including the plaintiffs who are two in number. The defendants are the remaining siblings of the plaintiffs. The father of the plaintiffs had another item of property measuring 2 acres and 33 cents. On 2.8.2003, the parents of the plaintiffs jointly executed Ext.A1 Will by which the suit property as also the property owned by the father of the plaintiffs as referred to above have been bequeathed to their children, after dividing the same into different plots. Subsequently, the father of the plaintiffs passed away. After the death of the father, the mother of the plaintiffs revoked Ext.A1 Will in so far as it relates to her one half share in the suit property and assigned the said share to the plaintiffs as per Ext.A2 assignment deed. The suit was filed thereafter by the plaintiffs seeking partition of their 11/18 share in the suit property on the strength of Ext.A2 assignment deed. The claim of the plaintiffs was that they are entitled to the ½ share of their mother in the suit property as obtained by them by virtue of Ext.A2 assignment deed and also 2/9 share of the ½ share of their father in the suit property in their capacity as two among the nine legal representatives of their father. 3. The defendants resisted the suit contending that the mother of the plaintiffs was not having a steady and disposable state of mind at the time of execution of Ext.A2 assignment deed and therefore, the plaintiffs cannot claim any right in the suit property on the strength of the said document. They also contended that though Ext.A1 is styled as a Will, it is in effect a settlement deed and as such, the mother of the plaintiffs could not have revoked the same. 4. The trial court rejected the contention of the defendants that the mother of the plaintiffs was not having a steady and disposable state of mind at the time of execution of Ext.A2 assignment deed. It also rejected the contention of the defendants that Ext.A1 Will is liable to be construed as a settlement deed. 4. The trial court rejected the contention of the defendants that the mother of the plaintiffs was not having a steady and disposable state of mind at the time of execution of Ext.A2 assignment deed. It also rejected the contention of the defendants that Ext.A1 Will is liable to be construed as a settlement deed. Consequently, on the basis of Ext.A2 assignment deed, the trial court decreed the suit as prayed for. Though the defendants took up the matter in appeal, the appellate court, on a reappraisal of the evidence on record, confirmed the decision of the trial court. Hence, this second appeal by defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 4 to 6. 5. Heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri. T. Krishnanunni for the appellants and Adv. Sri. M.A. Abdul Hakkim for the respondents. 6. As noted above, Ext.A1 Will has been executed not only in respect of the suit property, but also in respect of the property exclusively held by the father of the plaintiffs. It is beyond dispute that for the purpose of executing Ext.A1 Will, the entire extent of the property measuring 4 acres and 3 cents was divided into ten distinct plots and nine out of the said ten plots were bequeathed to the children of the testators. There is no dispute to the fact that the extent of the plots bequeathed are almost equal. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants contended, based on the nature of disposition made in Ext.A1 Will as aforesaid, that the intention of the testators was to give almost equal extent of property to all their children. Since both items of properties were pooled together for the purpose of dividing the same into different plots, the plots bequeathed to some of the legatees were portions of the property held exclusively by the father of the plaintiffs, the plots bequeathed to some others were portions of the suit property as also portions of the property held by the father of the plaintiffs and the plots bequeathed to the rest were portions of the suit property. Since all the legatees were not given portions of the suit property, if the intention of the testators was to give almost equal extent of property to all their children, according to the learned Senior Counsel, the said intention presupposes an agreement between the testators that the Will will not be revoked by either of them after the death of the other, for, the said intention would not be achieved, if one among them revokes the Will after the death of the other. According to the learned Senior Counsel, in the aforesaid circumstances, Ext.A1 can be construed only as an irrevocable Will. The learned counsel has relied the decision of the Madras High Court in Kuppuswami Raja vs. Perumal Raja, AIR 1964 Madras 291 in support of the said contention. If Ext.A1 Will is construed as an irrevocable one, it was pointed out that Ext.A2 assignment deed is invalid and the suit based on the said document is only to be dismissed. Even if it is found that Ext.A2 assignment deed is a valid document, according to the learned Senior Counsel, no relief can be granted to the plaintiffs as the suit as framed is not maintainable. To substantiate the said contention, the learned counsel pointed out that in so far as the bequeathal was made in respect of distinct plots, only those legatees who have been given portions of the suit property as per the terms of the Will are affected by the revocation of the Will by the mother. According to the learned Senior Counsel, even the said legatees are affected by the revocation of the Will only in so far as the undivided right the mother had in the distinct plot given to them as per the terms of the Will. As such, according to the learned Senior Counsel, the plaintiffs are entitled to seek partition only in respect of the distinct plots comprising of portions of the suit property against the persons to whom such plots are bequeathed as per Ext.A1 Will and the suit instituted claiming 11/18 share in the suit property is not maintainable. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 contended that Ext.A1 being a joint Will, the same can be revoked at any time and Ext.A2 assignment deed is, therefore, valid and binding the suit property. 8. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 contended that Ext.A1 being a joint Will, the same can be revoked at any time and Ext.A2 assignment deed is, therefore, valid and binding the suit property. 8. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the following questions of law are formulated for decision in the second appeal: (i) Whether, in the nature of the disposition made in Ext.A1 Will, the mother of the plaintiffs was entitled to revoke Ext.A1 Will? (ii) Whether the suit as framed is maintainable? 9. Question (i): The question whether the mother of the plaintiffs was competent to revoke Ext.A1 Will depends on the nature of Ext.A1 Will. As pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, since Ext.A1 Will has been executed after dividing the entire extent of property into distinct plots of almost equal extent, it is explicit that the intention of the testators was to give almost equal extent of property to all their children. The said intention of the testators is evident from the recital in Ext.A1 Will that the arrangement contained therein has been made with a view to enable the children of the testators to enjoy their properties with unity after their death. In other words, the testators never contemplated to exclude any of their children from inheriting their property. As noted above, the plots bequeathed to some of the legatees were portions of the property held exclusively by the father of the plaintiffs, the plots bequeathed to some others were portions of the suit property as also portions of the property held by the father of the plaintiffs and the plots bequeathed to the rest were portions of the suit property. As such, if the authority of the mother of the plaintiffs to revoke the Will is conceded after the death of the father, the children of the testators who have obtained portions of the suit property will not be able to claim ownership over the properties given to them as per the Will. As such, if the authority of the mother of the plaintiffs to revoke the Will is conceded after the death of the father, the children of the testators who have obtained portions of the suit property will not be able to claim ownership over the properties given to them as per the Will. As indicated above, since the testators never contemplated to exclude any of their children from inheriting their properties after their death at the time of execution of Ext.A1 Will, it can be safely concluded that there was an implied contract between the testators that one among them will not revoke the Will after the death of the other. The question whether there was an implied agreement not to cancel or revoke the Will can also be resolved by finding an answer to the question as to whether the father of the plaintiff would have made a Will of this nature in respect of his properties had he contemplated a situation where the mother cancels the Will in so far as it relates to her rights over the properties after his death. Since the father never wanted to exclude any of his children from inheriting his properties, there is no difficulty in holding that the father would not have made a Will of this nature without there being an agreement with the mother that either of them would not revoke the Will after the death of the other. Any other interpretation of Ext.A1 Will would be highly inequitable and would work out serious injustice to the parties. As noted above, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondents is that Ext.A1 being a joint Will, the same cannot be revoked by one among the testators in relation to his/her property. True, a joint Will is a single testamentary instrument consisting or containing the Wills of two or more persons and jointly executed by them and as such there is no impediment in law for one of the testators to cancel the Will in so far as it relates to his/her property. A close reading of Ext.A1 Will does not indicate that there is mutuality in the Will. But the same clearly presupposes the union of minds between the husband and wife and a mutual exchange of ideas between them. A close reading of Ext.A1 Will does not indicate that there is mutuality in the Will. But the same clearly presupposes the union of minds between the husband and wife and a mutual exchange of ideas between them. When a document rests on a bilateral agreement entered into by the husband and wife which is founded upon mutual consideration and mutual trust and confidence, it cannot be contended that one among them can frustrate and defeat the very object and purpose of the document. I have therefore no hesitation to hold that the mother of the plaintiffs was not competent to revoke Ext.A1 Will and the plaintiffs are therefore not entitled to any relief in the suit. Question (i) is thus answered in favour of the appellants. 10. Question (ii): I have found that Ext.A1 Will was irrevocable after the death of one of the testators and that therefore the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief in the suit. As such, though it is not necessary to consider the question whether the suit as framed is maintainable, I deem it appropriate to deal with the said question also as the same was specifically raised in the appeal. As pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, the plots bequeathed to some of the legatees were portions of the property held exclusively by the father of the plaintiffs, the plots bequeathed to some others were portions of the suit property as also portions of the property held by the father of the plaintiffs and the plots bequeathed to the rest were portions of the suit property. As such, as rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel, in so far as the bequeathal is made in respect of the distinct plots, only those legatees who have been given portions of the suit property as per the terms of the Will are affected by the revocation of the Will by the mother of the plaintiffs. As such, even assuming that the revocation of Ext.A1 Will by mother of the plaintiffs is valid, the plaintiffs are entitled to seek partition only in respect of the distinct plots comprising of portions of the suit property against the persons to whom such plots are bequeathed. The suit instituted claiming partition of 11/18 share in the suit property against the remaining siblings of the plaintiffs is therefore not maintainable. The suit instituted claiming partition of 11/18 share in the suit property against the remaining siblings of the plaintiffs is therefore not maintainable. Question (ii) is also thus answered in favour of the appellants. 11. In the light of the findings aforesaid, the second appeal is allowed, the impugned judgments are set aside and the suit is dismissed. All the interlocutory applications in the appeal are closed.