Patanjali Sastri, J.

1. The only question raised in this second appeal is whether the plaintiff-respondent is precluded by his individual conduct from claiming the properties in suit as the nearest reversionary heir of his maternal grandfather, one Makineni Buchayya, who was the last full owner. Both the Courts below have held that he is not and passed a decree for delivery of possession. The defendants 1 to 3, 5 and 6 have preferred this appeal challenging the correctness of that decision.

2. The following table will show the relationship of the parties one to another :

Buchayya : Lakshmi Devi (d. 1900) (d. 21-5-1930) | __________________________________ | | Mangamma (predeceased Buchayya) Subbamma (d. 1906) | | Venkatasubbamma (d. 1906) Bapayya (Plaintiff) | Veerayya (first defendant)

3. On the 4th January, 1904, Lakshmi Devi executed a dakhal deed (Ex. D-1) whereby she transferred the properties inherited by her from her husband Buchayya. The deed recites that her husband, while in a sound state, made arrangements to the effect that she should enjoy during her lifetime the entire moveable and Immovable property belonging to him, and that after her lifetime one half of the p