1. Both the courts are agreed as to the import-ant facts in the case. Though what purports to be a sale-deed for money was executed and registered by Sabapathy Pillai to the 1st defendant, yet the instrument was not delivered to him but retained by Sabapathy Pillai himself, who also remained in possession of the property until he made the transfer in favour of the temple repre-sented by the plaintiffs and subsequently held possession under the temple as their tenant until his death. It was subsequently to his death, ten years after the supposed sale to him that the 1st defend-ant took possession of the property. The defendants’ plea that the intended transfer to him was in consideration of Rs. 300 actually paid was untrue. The explanation on behalf of the plaintiffs of the transaction was that Sabapathy Pillai intended to marry the 1st defendant’s daughter and that the transfer was to be in consideration of such marriage which, in fact, never took place and that the 1st defendant having refused to give his daughter in marriage the transfer was never completed. Not-withstanding the by no means clear language used by the Munsif in that part of his judgment to which our attention has been called on behalf of ths 1st defendant, we cannot agree with the suggestion that the plaintiff’s case was that the mere promise to give and not the actual gift of the girl, formed the consideration for the execution of the deed by Sabapathy Pillai. It would be absurd to suppose that Sabapathy Pillai was willing to part with his property upon the mere promise to give the girl in marriage irrespective of whether that promise was to be carried out or not and the unquestionable facts that the document was never delivered nor possession of the property given, are abso-lutely inconsistent with the suggestion referred to which has been accepted by the Judge. It is, therefore, clear that the transfer was intended to be effected only in the event of the marriage taking place and as it did not take place, effect was not given to the intention to transfer and no property passed to the 1st defendant. Ponnayya Goundan v. Muthu Goundan I.L.R., 17 M. 146 to which the District Judge refers, has no application to cases of this kind and though in the circumstances of that case, actual handing over of the instrument after registration was not essential to vest the property in the vendee, it cannot be laid down as a general rule that mere registration of an instrument without reference to other circumstances operates to transfer the property. Sangu Aiyar v. Cumarasaini Mudaliar I.L.R., 18 M. 61 and Maula Din v. Raghunadan Pershad Singh I.L.R., 27 C. 7.
2. We, therefore, reverse the decree of the District Judge and restore that of the District Munsif with costs in this and in the lower appellate court.