496 Journal of the Asiatic Society oj Bengal. [August, 1911, 
tions which are genuine; so that as regards the script there is 
nothing suspicious in this grant. 
In stating his second ground for discrediting this grant he 
points out that it differs from the formula found in the 
majority of copper-plate inscriptions (p. 432). I need not 
exempt therefrom ; that is, they might be (in modern Revenue 
language) either ‘ revenue-paying’ or ‘ revenue-free.’ It was 
no doubt to guard the royal revenues from being endangered 
that the parties to a grant were required to give notice to the 
Government. Neither the king nor his high officials could 
attend every small grant such as these were, and it would seem 
that the mahattaras attended as representatives of the loc 
administration at the transaction. ; 
Babu R. D. Banerji points out that grants might be 
forged, and cites an instance mentioned in the. Madhuban 
Plate of Harsa (Epig. Ind. VII, 155). Certainly grants " 
sometimes forged, but the particulars and circumstances 
that case and this grant are altogether different. In that case 
the brahman, who held the kiata-éasana, claimed a whole 
village under it. What he did was obviously this. He did not 
the false grantee. It was therefore for the king to annu 
false grant, and not for the villagers to contest it. 
The particulars and circumstances of this grant however 
were altogether different, as has been already explained. 1¢8 
