Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. It becomes necessary to state a few facts in order to make the questions of law raised intelligible. The suit may be shortly described as one brought by the reversioners of a deceased Hindu. One Brahmayya(senior) died somewhere about the year 1864 and was succeeded by his widow Subbamma, who died on 27th September, 1914, that is, about 50 years later. On her death the estate vested in two persons named Ramayya and Brahmayya (junior), sons of two brothers. After Ramayyas death his sons (plaintiffs 1 to 5) along with Brahmayya (junior) executed on 21st November, 1916, the document Ex. F, in favour of the 6th plaintiff, a stranger. On 27th September, 1926, that is, on the last day of the period provided by the law of limitation, the present suit was brought. The plaint, which purports to have been filed by plaintiffs 1 to 6, was in fact signed and verified only by the sixth plaintiff, who described himself as the authorised agent under Ex. F of plaintiffs 1 to 5. It must be mentioned that although the plaint contains the statement that the correct court-fee of Rs. 80 odd was paid the amount of court-fee actually paid was Re. 1. The plaint was then return