JUDGMENT : STANLEY, BANERJI, JJ. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was brought by the respondent for the resumption of a rent-free grant. The defence was that under section 158 of the Agra Tenancy Act the defendants had acquired proprietary title by reason of the land having been held rent-free by the original grantee and by two successors to the grantee for a period of upwards of 50 years. It has been found that the grant was made to one Lalji more than 50 years ago, that upon Lalji's death his son, Niwazi, made a gift of it to the defendants. It is contended that by the expression “successors to the original grantee” in section 150 of the Agra Tenancy Act, it was intended that the grant must be in the possession of lineal descendants of the original grantee. It may be that the intention of the Legislature was that this should be so, but the word used is “successors,” and that word is wide enough to include not only an heir but a transferee also. We have to construe the section as it stands, and we are not competent to place any limitation on the language used by holding that the word ‘successors’ does not mean successors of every description, including a transferee, but only successors by right of inheritance. The same view was taken by our brother RICHARDS in Second Appeal No. 175 of 1910, decided on the 14th of February, 1911, which has not yet been reported. Accordingly we allow the appeal, set aside the decree of the lower appellate court and restore that of the court of first instance with costs in all courts.