1. These second appeals arise out of the same suit and the facts out of which the suit arose may be stated as follows:

One Vajrala Chinna Rami Reddi died intestate and issueless about 25 years before suit. His properties devolved upon his widow Subbamma who died eight months before suit, After her death one Venkata Reddi, claiming to be the reversioner filed a suit (O.S. 10 of 1921) to recover the suit properties. There were five items of property. Defendants 1 and 10 to 15 were impleaded as lessees under Subbamma of items 1 to 3. Defendants 2 to 6 are the sons of defendant 1. Defendants 7 to 9 andl6 to 18 were their sub-lessees. Defendants 19 to 21 were alleged to be the alienees of items 4 and 5. Defendant 22 is the deity of a temple represented by a trustee in whose favour item 2 was alienated. On the plea of defendants 1 to 18 that the plaintiff was not the nearest reversioner but that there were four other near reversioners who sold the property to T. Veakatakrishnayya, he was added as defendant 23. The pedigree on which the plaintiff relied is as follows:

2. According to the pedigree relied on by defendant 23 the plaintiffs grandfather Gangi Reddi had a father Rami Reddi who was said to be the brother of Ayyalu Reddi the grandfather of Chinna Rami Reddi, the last male owner. Ayyalu Reddi had another brother Krishna Reddi whose descendants are as follows:

3. The last four are the vendors of defendant 23.

4. Some time after the filing of the suit a second suit O.S. No. 352 of 1922 was filed by one Ayyarappa Reddi who denied the relationship alleged by the rival claimants in O.S. No. 10 and relied on a pedigree of his own. By consent the two suits were tried together, the witnesses for each claimant being allowed to be cross-examined by the other two claimants. The alienees defendants 19 and 21 also denied that any of the claimants were reversioners. The District Munsif found that the relationship alleged by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 352 was not true and dismissed his suit. In O.S. No. 10 he found that the father of Gangi Reddi was not Rami Reddi but Veera Reddi so that Gangi Reddi was a brother of Krishna Reddi, the ancestor of the reversioners put forward by defendant 23. On this finding the latter reversioners as well as the plaintiff in O.S. 10 would be reversioners of equal degree. He, therefore, gave a decree to the plaintiff for one-fifth of items 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6, defendant 23 being entitled to the remainder 4/5ths of these items and awarded joint possession. He dismissed the suit as regards item 5 because he found that the alienation of that item was binding on the reversioners. There were three appeals which wore heard by the Sub-Court of Guntur A.S. 35 of 1924 was by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 10 in respect of item 5 and 4/5ths of item 1 to 4 and 6. A.S. 36 of 1924 was by defendants 19 and 21 in respect of item 4. A.S. 61 of 1924 was by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 352 of 1922. The Subordinate Judge found that the claimant in O.S. No. 352 of 1922 was not the reversioner and dismissed the last mentioned appeal. He does not file a second appeal and we are not concerned with that case any further.

5. In A.S. No. 36, that is, the appeal of defendants 19 and 21 the plaintiff and defendant 23 were made respondents but no others. In A.S. Nos. 35 and 36 the Subordinate Judge found that the alienations of both items 4 and 5 were binding on the reversioners. This was enough for allowing A.S. 36 and dismissing A.S. 35. But as defendants 19 and 21 also questioned the relationship of the plaintiff and defendant 23 he considered that question also and he found that neither the plaintiff nor defendant 23 has proved the relationship relied on by each of them. Having recorded the latter finding he dismissed the plaintiffs suit even as to items 1, 2, 3 and 6 though no appeals were filed by defendants 1 to 18 in respect of these items. It may be observed here that defendant 23 did not file an appeal questioning the finding of the D