JUDGMENT
Chapman, J.
1. This appeal arises out of a suit upon a mortgage-bond. The suit has been dismissed on the preliminary ground that the bond was not validly registered, the registration having taken place in Patna when the land which is the subject matter of the mortgage-bond was situated in another registration District, namely, the District of Muzaffarpur.
2. The properly mortgaged was a 4-annas share of Mouza Raipur Hussainpur. The mortgage-bond was executed in June 1897, it was presented for registration on the 27th of June in that year, the bond containing a recital that Mouza Raipur Hussainpur bearing Touzi No. 160 is situated within the thana of Fulwari in Sub-District Patna.
3. The defendants assailed the validity of this registration upon the ground that Mouza Raipur Hussainpur was situated not in the Patna District but in the District of Muzaffarpur. The burden of proof lay upon them to make this out and to satisfy the Court that the registration was on that account invalid.
4. Now it is conceded that-prior to the year 1894 this mouza lay within the Registration District of Patna, The defendants’ case is that it was transferred to the Registration District of Muzaffarpur by reason of a notification in April 1894. That notification is to the following effect: “It is hereby notified for general information that for administrative purposes the main stream of the river Ganges shall be the boundary between the Districts of Darbhanga and Muzaffarpur on the one side and the District of Patna on the other. ”
5. To obtain the benefit of this notification the defendants had to make out, first, that the words “for administrative purposes” included the meaning “for the purposes of the Registration Act” and next, that the Mouza Raipur Hussainpur in June 1897 was situated north of the main stream of the river Ganges. It is not suggested that the touzi number of this mouza has been altered, and this seems to indicate that for revenue purposes the mouza continued as within the District of Patna as before Further, the Registration Act contemplates in Section 5 that transfers of jurisdiction, should be declared only by notifications under that Act. The Notification of 1894 was not under the Registration Act. It is, therefore, by no means clear that the Notification of 1894 intended to effect a transfer of any area from the jurisdiction of the Registering Officer in Patna to the Registering Officer in Muzaffarpur. Indeed it might be argued that the notification did not purport to effect a transfer at all for any purpose: it does not say that any transfer is,to be effected. It is merely a declaration what the boundary of the two districts should be considered to be.
6. In the next place, the defendants have,in order to have the benefit of the notification, to show that in June 1897 this mouza lay north of the main stream of the river Ganges. The only evidence on this point is a survey map purporting to have been made in 1895 and 1896, and this is to be considered with the survey record, which indicates that this mouza was treated for the purposes of the Record Of Rights as part of the District of Muzaffarpur. The survey map does not distinctly show that the main stream of the river Ganges lay to the south of this mouza. There is a stream shown in the map marked “river Ganges” south of the mouza, but the width of the stream shown in the survey map does not appear to be very great: and it may not have been the main stream.
7. In the opinion of the officer who prepared the map this mouza lay outside the limits of the District of Patna, but that opinion would not be conclusive. On the other hand, there is a notification in June 1905 which makes it quite clear that prior to that notification this particular village Raipur Hussainpur, which is expressly named in the notification, was regarded as situated within the District of Patna. The only other evidence to suggest that this mouza is situated outside the registration of the Patna sub-registry are two deeds in 1899 and 1903, in which it is recited that the land is situated in the District of Muzaffarpur, but the execution of these deeds by private parties and their acceptance by the Sub-Registrar of Muzaffarpur would be very slight evidence.
8. In my opinion the balance of the evidence is not in favour of the defendants, and I would hold that they have failed to make out that Mouza Raipur Hussainpur was in June 1897 at the time of the registration of this bond situated outside the Registration District of Patna.
9. The result is that I would allow the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree and remand the case for disposal on the merits. Costs to abide the result. The appellant is entitled to a certificate authorising him to receive back from the Collector the amount of Court-fee paid by him.
Rob, J.
10. I agree. It seems to me common sense to say that in a case of this sort the mortgagor and mortgagees would know within what sub-district the property was situated for the purposes of registration, and in that sense the burden of proof would lie under Section 114 of the Evidence Act upon the party claiming that the description given of the property was incorrect. But even supposing that the burden of proof would lie in the first instance upon the mortgagee to show that his document was presented for registration at the proper registration office within the meaning of Section 32 of the Act of 1877, I would hold that the notification of the 1st June 1905 is conclusive proof that prior to the 1st June 1905 the village with which we are now concerned was in the Patna District and that the burden of proof was upon the defendants in this action to show that the proper registration office was in 1897 not the proper registration office as it stood on the 31st of May 1905 I entirely agree with my learned brother that no real attempt has been made to support that burden of proof.