( 1 ) I have had the benefit of reading the judgment of my brother Mehrotra, J, and agree with him but I would like to add a few words on the merits of the case.

( 2 ) THE facts brought out in this petition show that originally the Sanad granted in favour of B. Ausan Singh conferred on him the rights of a proprietor in the pergana and he became entitled to realise the revenue which was payable by the sub-proprietors instead of the Government. Subsequently, however, this grant was resumed and it was decided that his successor B. Shiv narain Singh was to be considered as the Tehsildar of Pergana Syudpore Bheittree and was to be allowed to hold the office hereditary. B. Shiv Narain Singh and after him his son B. Har Narain singh did not agree to work as Tehsildars and to bear all expenses of administration and loss in collection. Ultimately this dispute ended in the grant of a sum of Rs. 36,330/- as pension to B. Har Narain singh and his heirs, the amount being calculated on the basis of one-fourth of the revenue of the said Pergana which thereafter became payable directly to the Government. On these facts, it is clear that from the time of the grant of this pension all r