JUDGMENT Allsop, J. - The question in this second appeal is whether the transfer made by Sawania the owner of properties in 1932 prevails over a transfer made of the same property in 1933. The property transferred in 1932 has been found as a matter of fact to be worth less than Rs. 100. Sawania executed a deed of sale but did not register it. The finding of the learned Judge of the lower Court was that the transfer of 1932 was a valid transfer and consequently that there was nothing left to transfer in 1933. Learned Counsel for the Appellants admits that the decisions of this Court support the finding of the learned Judge, but he relies upon a later Madras ruling in the case of Kuppuswami Goundan v. Chinnaswami Goundan AIR 1928 MAD 546 , for the proposition that the owner of property worth less than Rs. 100 may transfer it either by means of a registered deed of sale or by means of delivery of possession provided that no document has been executed, but that delivery of possession does not effect a transfer if a document has been executed and that document is not registered. I feel that I should follow the rulings of this Court which I think are correct. Nobody who executes a deed of sale of property worth less than Rs. 100 is required by law to register it. The only effect of non-registration is that the document does not operate to transfer the ownership of the property, that is to vest it in the vendee instead of in the vendor. The person who has executed the deed does not transgress any law by failing to proceed to registration and if the parties in the first instance intended that the sale should be affected by means of a registered instrument and thereafter change their minds and choose to effect it in another manner equally well-known to law, that is, by delivery of possession, I can see no reason why they should not do so. 2. I my judgment there is no force in this appeal and I dismiss it with costs.