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 Red