Facts:- This was a suit for redemption of an oil-well mortgaged by the plaintiff's father to the defendant in 1875 for Rs. 500. The further sum of Rs. 200 was advanced by the defendant on the same security in 1879. This latter advance was evidenced by a Parabaik document. The mortgagee deepened the well at his own cost. The mortgagor contended that this latter document created only a further charge, while the mortgagee contended bat the transaction was a sale out and out. The suit was filed in the District Court of Magwe. The defendant contended further that the well in suit was on State land and therefore the revenue Court had jurisdiction under Section 53 of the Upper Burma Land and Revenue Regulation to the exclusion of the Civil Courts. The District Court rejected the plea of want of jurisdiction and held that the Parabaik document was a mortgage and not a sale. On appeal to the Court of the Judicial Commissioner it was held the suit was to establish an interest in the State land and was therefore not triable by a Civil Court. The mortgagor thereupon initiated proceedings in the Special Revenue Officer's Court which held that it had no jurisdiction as the well was not on state land. Thereupon the mortgagor moved the Judicial Commissioner to review and the Judicial Commissioner on review held that the defendant was bound to show that the mortgage was converted into a sale by the subsequent transaction. The mortgagee therefore appealed to His Majesty in Council. Lord Moulton — Their Lordships are of opinion, that, upon the evidence before the Judge at the trial, more especially the evidence of the witnesses called for the plaintiff, it was satisfactorily established that the second transaction was a sale. They are also of opinion that, even if the Court were of opinion that there was no reliable evidence as to the nature of the second transaction, so that the rights of the parties must be settled by the first transaction, the result of the action would be the same, inasmuch as in that case the Statute of Limitations would apply, because the plaintiffs right to redeem would have accrued more that 30 years before the action, and nothing was proved which would take the case out of the Statute. Their Lordships, therefore, agree with the decision of the learned Judge of first instance, and are of opinion that it ought to have been affirmed by the Judicial Commissioner, and they will humbly advise His Majesty that the decision of the Judicial Commissioner should be set aside with costs, and the decision of the first Court restored. The respondent must pay the costs of this appeal. Appeal allowed.