Vol. ‘ cee 2.] Certain Disputed or Doubtful Events. 53 
[W.S.] 
under regular subjection of Lakhanawati. On several occa- 
sions I-yal-timish sent forces recovering possession thereof and 
putting his own men in charge; but the latter were soon driven 
out. In 622 H.L-yal-timish himself marched against Lakhana- 
wati, and compelling "Iwaz to acknowledge his suzerainty, put 
Izz-ud-din Jani in separate charge ol Bihar. But as soon as 
the imperial standards were withdrawn, ’Iwaz turned Jani out 
by force. In 624 H., at the ‘tstigaHort of the said ’Izz-ud-din 
Jani, the eldest son of I-yal-timish moved from Awadh towards 
Bengal, defeated and killed ’Iwaz, and took possession of 
Lakhanawati with apparently Bihar. On his death Daulat 
Shah-i-Balka rebelled in Lakhanawati, but it is not clear what 
became of Bihar. In 628 H. I- yal-timish marched against the 
rebel, and after defeating him put Bihar under a separate gover- 
or. Iwo governors are mentioned, Saif-ud-din [bak and his 
succsesor Tughril-i-Tughan Khan. The latter when appointed 
governor of Lakhanawati succeeded in keeping Bihar. Nothing 
fu —o is mentioned about this province in the Tabakat-i. 
g the good-natured but feeble reign of Nasir-ud-din Mah- 
‘one Shah (644-664 H.), both provinces seem to have continued 
as a joint fief under the same feudatory (cf. the Barahdari 
inscription, Bihar, dated 663 H.). 
(VI) [Matix Daher iey a YOz-BAK-1-TUGHRIL KHAN, 
ULTAN MUGu-IS-UD-DIN. | 
Of this Malik’s rule in Bengal, the Tabakat-i unfortu- 
— no Acar a “ a whom he succeeded. The pre- 
given is 29th Shawwal 
date 
644 H. (9th March, 1247 re Dy when died Malik Kamar-ud-din 
Ki-ran-i-Tamur Khan-us-Sultani (also written Tamur Khan-i- 
Ki-ran). 
The coins, luckily, throw some though sage a faint light. 
Tn a small hoard discovered at Gauhati, Assam, two coins with 
the mint iektineals bear the date 653 a ‘and the name 
as ghis-ud-din (J.A.S.B., 1881, Vol. 50, pt. I, p. 61, Nos. 11 and 
2; Ind. Mus. Cat., ii, p. 146, No. 6). This title ing Malik 
lpia when he assumed independence (Tab., pp. 763-4). 
Another coin with the mint Lakhnauti and the Sultan’ Ss name 
Mahmid has in the margin with other illegible letters, the word 
Yiiz-bak, and the date 65*, the unit figure being uncertain, 
probably 1 or 2 (Chronicles, pp. 128-9, No. 110; S. 
Vol. 50, pt. I, 1881, pp. 68-9, 60; Ind. Mus. Cat., ii, p. 33, 
No. 140). At that time therefore the Delhi Sultan, Mahinad, 
was acknowledged as suzerain. The assumption of indepen- 
dence would have been made some time after this, say between 
651 and 653 H. Mughis-ud-din invaded Kamrap, but on ac- 
count of floods after the spring harvest had to retreat; he 
