JUDGMENT This second appeal has been brought against the decree of the learned District Judge, Manipur, dated 4-10-1955 passed in Civil Appeal No. 37 of 1955, by which the judgment of the learned Munsiff, Manipur, dated 8-2-1955 in Title Suit No. 311 of 1951 was confirmed. 2. It appears that Ningombam Kanhai Singh, respondent 1, brought Title Suit No. 311 of 1951 in the Court of the Munsiff, Manipur against the appellant and respondent 2 for declaration of his title to the land under patta No. 11/235-I.E.T. on the allegation that he had purchased the suit land from respondent 2 by means of the sale deed dated 18-10-1945, which was registered on 29-4-1946 and he was given delivery of possession also. The present appellant contested the suit on the ground that the land in question had been sold to him on 3-1-1946 and the sale deed had been registered on 26-3-1946, while respondent 2 contended that the transaction in favour of respondent 1 was not a sale but a mortgage. The learned Munsiff, decreed the suit relying on S. 47, Indian Registration Act and the learned District Judge as has already been stated above has confirmed this decree in Civil Appeal No. 37 of 1955. Defendant 1 has now come to this Court in second appeal. 3. It has not been disputed before me that the sale deed in favour of the appellant regarding the disputed property was executed on 5-1-1946 for Rs. 330/- and this deed was registered on 26-3-1946. Respondent 2 is stated to have executed another sale deed in favour of respondent 1 on 18-10-1945 for Rs. 120/- only, but this sale deed was registered later on 29-4-1946. The Courts below have relied on S. 47, Registration Act which runs as follows : "47. A registered document shall operate from the time from which it would have commenced to operate if no registration thereof had been required or made, and not from the time of its registration." 4. The section was introduced in 1864 and prior to the Act of 1864, the rule adopted by the various Regulations and Acts was that documents operated from the dates of their registration, and preference was given according to priority of registration, vide Lakshman Das Sarupchand v. Dasrat, 6 Bom 168 (FB) (A). The section was introduced in 1864 and prior to the Act of 1864, the rule adopted by the various Regulations and Acts was that documents operated from the dates of their registration, and preference was given according to priority of registration, vide Lakshman Das Sarupchand v. Dasrat, 6 Bom 168 (FB) (A). In this Manipur State the Indian Registration Act, 1908 came into force with effect from 1-1-1950 and prior to that date the old Manipur Registration Rules were in force. The relevant rules which were in force in 1946 AD in Manipur are as follows : "1. The following documents must be registered : (1) Mortgagees and deeds of gift or sale of : (a) Homestead lands, (b) culturable lands or crops, (c) Cattle and ponies. (2) Deeds of a cash value of more than Rs. 15/-. (3) Transfers of all fisheries, ferries, salt-wells and grass-mahals. (4) Agreements for hypothecation of crops of more than 12 pots of dhan. All existing documents under these categories must be registered within three months of the promulgation of these rules. After the expiry of the period no suits of the above nature will be entertained by any State Court unless supported by a registered document. Every document must be registered within one month of its execution. The penalty for a breach of this rule is double registration fees for every month of delay. The Political Agent has issued similar instructions with regard to cases in his Court. * * * * 1c. No documents executed after 1-1-1924 will be accepted for registration unless presented for registration within 6 months of the date of writing of the document (vide Darbar Resolution No. 2 of 1-8-23). In future no deeds executed before 1-1-1924 will be accepted for registration. (Vide Darbar Resolution No. 2A of 4-2-35). 2. Any transaction, proved to be benami will ipso facto be null and void. This will take effect from the date of the promulgation of this order...." A perusal of these rules makes it clear that the rule relating to registration in this State was in conformity with the law which prevailed in other Parts of India prior to 1864. 2. Any transaction, proved to be benami will ipso facto be null and void. This will take effect from the date of the promulgation of this order...." A perusal of these rules makes it clear that the rule relating to registration in this State was in conformity with the law which prevailed in other Parts of India prior to 1864. If the appellant acquired any right on 26-3-1946 under the then Manipur Registration Rules, he became the owner of the disputed property on that date, the subsequent change in the procedural law enacted in S. 47, Indian Registration Act will not defeat his title which had already matured on 26-3-1946 long before the enforcement of the Indian Registration Act in this State on 1-1-1950 and so no reliance could properly be placed on S. 47, Indian Registration Act in this case. 5. Again, the deed in favour of respondent 1 is for Rs. 120/- only and respondent 2 contended that it was really a mortgage deed. Even if possession was given to respondent 1 as a mortgagee, the mere delivery of possession under such circumstances will not confer full proprietary title on respondent 1. The present appellant paid Rs. 330/- as sale consideration of his sale deed, which was registered on 26-3-1946 and so it becomes clear that he really acquired the title to the disputed property. 6. I am, therefore, of opinion that the suit of respondent 1 was improperly decreed by the Courts below and this second appeal must be allowed. 7. I, therefore, allow this second appeal and I set aside the decrees passed by the Courts below and the suit of respondent 1 is dismissed with costs in all the Courts. Respondent 2 will neither pay nor receive any costs. Appeal allowed.