1. It is argued that Exhibit IV was registered and prior in date to Exhibit A, and that, though Exhibit I was not registered, the Respondent was not entitled to claim priority as against the appellant who was admittedly in possession. It is urged, on the other hand, for the Respondent that the instruments in competition with reference to the provision of Section 50 of the Registration Act must be instruments executed by one and the same person. Having regard to the language of Section 50 we see no foundation for this contention.It was certainly not intended to enable the vendor to sell his property more than once. On the true construction of that section, the instruments in competition must be taken to be those relating to the same property, though not necessarily executed by one and the same person, as the intention was to enable intending purchasers for value to rely on the registration books as a certain index of prior titles and incumbrances. Assuming that Exhibit I is genuine and represented a real transaction, it conferred a valid title on Kuthalingam against the vendor on the date of its execution, the price being less than Rs. 100. At the date of Exhibit IV no registered document was in existence, and the Appellant therefore acquired a valid title under his registered instrument. If the view which we take of the policy of Section 50 of the Registration Act is correct, and. the real scope of that section is, as we apprehend, limited to cases in which the party in possession can only rely on an unregistered instrument, we do not think the decision of the Judge can be supported. The District Judge does not record a finding as to the  genuineness of Exhibit I, and we must therefore ask him to find whether Exhibit I is genuine and whether it represents a real Sale for valuable consideration. It is urged for the Appellant that there is no finding that A represents a real transaction for consideration, though he finds that A is genuine and that there is no evidence of fraud. Although the Judge perhaps meant to find that it was a real transaction, this is not clear from his judgment. We must also ask him to find distinctly whether A also represents a real transaction for good consideration.