Vol. VIL, No. 8.] The Ghagrahati (Kotwalipara) Grant. 497 
[N.8.] 
ineredible that a poor brahman of no position, who wanted 
only a parcel of waste land for his personal occupation, could 
have foisted himself into this village by forging a copper-plate 
grant for a piece of char land as having been given to him by 
the business-men of the village. If he attempted such a fraud, 
he would have set the whole village up in arms against himself, 
and his claim would have been instantly disproved by the 
inhabitants and the mahattaras Further,such a deed, if forged 
forty or fifty years after its alleged date to support a claim 
to this piece of land, would have been wholly futile, because it 
would have been refuted by the fact, which every villager would 
benefit, and its very pettiness shews it cannot be spurious. 
Moreover it is expressly said that the cultivation of waste land 
increases the king’s revenue. 
Babu R. D. Banerji’s third ground deals with the meanin 
of this grant. He says the wording ‘‘is very ambiguous ”’ 
not proper 
Sanskrit, but their use, so far from being suspicious, is only 
could not be Sanskrit equivalents for every vernacular term, 
and the only course open was to Sanskritize those terms, 
nation has been put forward which is based upon substantial 
grounds and is appropriate. Coraka is a vernacular word 
Sane tp so I oan is jotika, and probably vothyd also: 
and for these three words meanings have be s ich 
are perfectly suitable. “ ne 
eculiar words are also found in the three other grants. 
