According to the Properties Law of the PRC (Article 191, Item 2): the transfer of mortgaged item without the consent of the mortgagee is restricted. This provision is mandatory rather than recommended. The Properties Law of the PRC does not grant recourse force to the mortgagee’s right. Instead, it chooses the before-hand restriction approach. Hence, theories based on recourse force do not work. Since China does not adopt the theory of Juristic Act of Real Right, the target being restricted by item 2 of Article 191 of the Properties Law of the PRC does not include the disposal action; nor the effect of the change to real right; otherwise, in the event that the personal property has been delivered, such provision could not prevent the change of ownership. If we interpret item 2 of Article 191 as imposing restriction on the mortgagor’s capacity of disposal, the effect of the transfer contract could be held to be pending pursuant to Article 51 of the Contract Law. Such approach will not violate the purpose of the legislation or impede properties circulation too much. As a result, it should be a sensible approach. However, when codifying the civil code, recognition of the recourse force is undoubtedly a more appropriate legislative plan.