87 Of course, had Harry Kitson survived his mother, she would have been entitled to exclude him entirely from her will or to make some provision for him quite different from that made for the other children. Subject only to the possibility, in that event, of an application by Harry Kitson for provision from her estate, which would have to be determined on the same principles as the present applications, it cannot be said in my respectful view that the evidence supports a finding that the deceased would have included any provision for Harry Kitson in her will. His Honour's finding that by the time of his death the deceased was not pleased with Harry is well supported by the evidence. This led it seems to the absence from the will of any provision for Harry's children. The evidence does not, however, suggest reasons why the deceased's view of Harry would have been different had he lived to survive her. The deceased's views that Harry Kitson had had his share, and that he had not repaid his debts to her, may or may not have been unjustified or unfair or unreasonable, but, even if they were, there is no reason found by his Honour or demonstrated by the evidence why they would change had Harry Kitson survived. In my respectful view, insofar as it is relevant, the probabilities were against any provision being made for Harry Kitson in the will of the deceased, let alone his sharing equally with his sister and brother. As his Honour's reasoning relevantly proceeds on the assumption that Harry Kitson would have shared in his mother's estate had he survived her, and that his share would have been not less that one third of the Myola property, the conclusions reached by his Honour from that reasoning must be reconsidered.