JUDGMENT Drake Brockman S.M., J. - Mst. Nihalo and Moola were recorded as co-occupancy tenants of the land in suit. Mst. Nilnlo has died. The zamindar has applied for the striking out of the name of Moola on the ground that he is not an occupancy tenant. It appears that Mst. Nihalo has been a tenant since the settlement of 1295 F. There is some evidence to show that Mst. Nihalo succeeded to the interest of her husband Niadar. Anyhow in 1912 a request was made by Mst. Nihalo that the name of Moola, her son by her second husband, should be recorded as co-occupancy tenant with her. In the proceedings the landholder was represented by his Mukhtaram and with the latter's consent the name of Moola was recorded. 2. In 1918 revision of records took place. An application was then made by Moola complaining that no settler ment parcha has been issued to him though he was an occupany tenant and had been admitted as such by the zamindar and by the order of 1912. On the same date the mukhtar-am of the zamindar appears to have filed a statement in writing saying that his master had of his own free will given his consent to the recording of Moola's name as co-occupancy tenant and that he had no objection to his name being recorded as occupancy tenant. In the revision of records therefore both Mst. Nihalo and Moola were attested occupancy tenants. 3. Since then rent has been paid by both and accepted by the landholder. 4. The Assistant Collector and the Collector both held that there was no mistake in records and that Moola was rightly recorded as occupancy tenant and his name could not be cut out. The learned Commissioner set aside this order on the strength of certain rulings. 5. Now, of course, it is important to see that when these transactions take place the interests of the landholder are not being prejudiced by any action behind his back or by unauthorised persons. The learned Commissioner set aside this order on the strength of certain rulings. 5. Now, of course, it is important to see that when these transactions take place the interests of the landholder are not being prejudiced by any action behind his back or by unauthorised persons. I do not understand the relevancy of Laik Singh v. Sukhawa 1 R. D. (R. E.) 267: 1 S. D. 1907, but Jalehri v. Manager Court of Wards 1 R. D. (R. E.) 421: 1 S. D. 1921, Abdul Aziz Khan v. Jai Kishen 1 R. D. (R. E.) 503: 17 S. D. 1924, and Kuldip Singh v. Ganga Barai (1933) 17 R. D. 444, all emphasise the principle that where it is proved that the landholder or some one authorised on his behalf has definitely and with full knowledge and consent agreed to acknowledge the status of a person under Act II of 1901 as possessing all the rights of an occupancy tenant, the arrangement is binding on him. The same principle is emphasised in Shaman Charan v. Chhidu Singh (1934) 18 R. D. 335. 6. It is urged here now that Mst. Nihalo was a widow and had a life-interest and that the agreement that Moola should be an occupancy tenant simply meant that he should hold as long as Mst. Nihalo held. This is clearly an afterthought. The whole object of the proceedings in 1912 and 1918 was obviously to secure succession of her interest to her son by the second husband. I would therefore allow the appeal, set aside the order of the learned Commissioner and restore the order of the Collector with costs and Rs. 10 Pleader's fees. Knox J.M. 7. I agree.