JUDGMENT Banerji and Griffin, JJ. - This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs appellants, who are assignees of Government revenue, to recover from the defendants, who are landholders, arrears of revenue payable by them. It appears that during the period in respect of which arrears of revenue are claimed, a portion of the revenue was remitted by Government on account of famine. The defendants claimed a deduction of this amount out of the arrears claimed. The courts below have granted the deduction prayed for. Hence this appeal. The contention on the part of the appellants is that the Government having assigned the revenue was not competent to grant a remission, and that such remission could not deprive the plaintiffs of their right to the revenue assigned to them. It appears that the assignment in favour of the plaintiffs was originally made by the Maharaja Scindia and was continued by the British Government. There is nothing to show that under the terms of the assignment it was agreed between the Government and the assignees that there should be no alteration in the amount of the revenue assigned. In the absence of any such agreement., we must hold that the assignees took the assignment subject to the ordinary rights of the Government to assess or reduce, or in seasons of calamity to remit, the whole or a part of the revenue. This is manifest from the provisions of section 52, sub-section (2) of Act No. III of 1801. That Sub-section provides that "revenue may be assessed on land, notwithstanding that the revenue, by reason of its having been assigned released, compounded for or redeemed, is not payable to the Government." Again, in the case of fluvial action the Government has the power u/s 99, sub-section (2), to revise the assessment, and the rules framed by the Board of Revenue for such revision contain a distinct provision to the effect that assessment of mahals of which the revenue has been wholly assigned will be liable to revision in the same manner and to the same extent as mahals which pay full revenue, (see rule 56, printed on page 158 of Mr. Agarwala's Edition of the Land Revenue Act). Any other view would cause immense hardship both to landholders and tenants. Agarwala's Edition of the Land Revenue Act). Any other view would cause immense hardship both to landholders and tenants. u/s 51 of the Agra Tenancy Act, where remission of revenue is granted; the land-holder is bound to grant a remission of rent to the extent of twice the amount of the revenue remitted. If the contention of the appellants is right, although u/s 51 the land-holder would be bound to grant a remission to his tenants, he himself would be liable, notwithstanding the remission, to pay the full amount of revenue to the assignees of it. It is urged on behalf of the appellants that it is only in the case of revenue payable to Government that a remission can be granted to tenants u/s 51, and that therefore land-holders will not be prejudiced. Assuming this contention to be valid, tenants would have no remedy in times of calamity, if the land occupied by them happens to be situated in a locality the revenue of which has been assigned by the Government to a third party. Such surely could not be the intention of the Legislature. In our opinion an assignee of Government revenue takes the assignment subject to all the rights of Government to assess, enhance, reduce, remit or suspend the revenue. The defendants, land-holders, are therefore entitled to the benefit of the remission granted by Government. In this view the courts below were right, and this appeal must fail. We accordingly dismiss it with costs.