1. The only question in dispute in this appeal is whether defendants 1 to 3 are the nearest reversionary heirs of the late Narayana. It is a question of fact and the lower appellate Court has found that defendants 1 to 3 are the nearest reversioners. It is urged, however, for the appellants that though it is a rinding on a question of fact this Court could interfere in second appeal as irrelevant evidence has been relied upon for the finding. It is also stated that the learned Judge had brushed aside evidence furnished by previous statements without proper reasons. Ex. D-1 is a statement made by the fourth defendant on which the learned Subordinate Judge has relied. It is a statement made before the Revenue Inspector, D.W. 8, at the time when an enquiry was held by the Revenue authorities regarding the heirs of Narayana. He has definitely stated there that " Kutagulla Munayya, China Gangayya and Gangi Reddi residents of Sankatipalli are the principal heirs and dayadis to the deceased. There are no others except these." It is true that the fourth defendant is alive and the statement is not admissible under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act. But then it is said that it is