Horwill, J.

1. The plaintiff claims a share in the suit property, because he and the first defendant were the reversioners of one Venkatasubbayya, whose property this was at the time when his widow Raghavamma surrendered the property to them. In appeal, this claim is resisted on the ground that the plaintiff and the first defendant, by reason of subsequent legislation, were not the reversioners because the widow was not in a position to surrender was not valid, estate, as a portion of it had been alienated. The lower appellate Court had against the appellants.

2. There is nothing in the first point. If the surrender was valid at the time when it was made, then it cannot become invalid because subsequent to the surrender, legislation made some other person the nearest reversioner

3. It would seems, although one cannot beuite sure what the real facts were, that the widow was that the widow was under the impression that the property said by the appellants to have been alienated did not belong to her, because of a will executed by her husband under which his mother became entitled to the property. She obtained a decree against her mother-in-law for some money due to her, and in ex