Judgment :- 1. In this appeal by the plaintiffs, the only claim pressed on their behalf, was for the recovery of 'stridhanam'. Defendants 1 to 4 are the children of Ittiavira who died on Karkadakam 4,1121. The first defendant married the first plaintiff in the year 1111, and the second plaintiff is their daughter. According to the plaintiffs, a sum of Rs. 3000/- was paid in cash to Ittiavirah. Since the year 1118, the first defendant has not been looking after the plaintiffs. In the year 1124, the plaintiffs instituted the suit out of which this appeal arises, for the recovery of the 'stridhanam' amount from the assets of Ittiavirah and for other reliefs. After the death of Ittiavirah, defendants 1 to 4 effected a partition deed, Ext. F, in the year 1124 and the 5th defendant was impleaded as the transferee of a portion of Ittiavirah's properties. According to defendants 3 and 5 who contested the suit, a sum of Rs. 1,000/- alone had been received by Ittiavirah in cash which was afterwards repaid as demanded by the first plaintiff and the first defendant, and for the balance of Rs. 2000/- the first plaintiff's mother had executed a promissory note, Ext. IV, to Ittiavirah, which was later renewed for principal and interest by Ext. VII and the money thereunder had not been realised and so on both these grounds, the claim for 'stridhanam' is unsustainable in its entirety. The Subordinate Judge accepted these contentions, but gave a decree against the 1st defendant for the sum of Rs. 1000/- and interest thereon at 6% per annum from the date of the suit on account of 'stridhanam' returned to him, and dismissed the suit as regards the other defendants. Incidentally, a decree for arrears of maintenance was also passed against the first defendant, but this does not arise in this appeal. 2. This appeal was contested by the 5th defendant. There is nothing on record to show, that the 5th defendant had any notice of the plaintiffs' claim when he took the transfer in his name. The plaintiffs do not claim a charge on any specific item of Ittiavirah's properties and all that they have prayed for, is a decree for realisation out of Ittiavirah's assets. There is nothing on record to show, that the 5th defendant had any notice of the plaintiffs' claim when he took the transfer in his name. The plaintiffs do not claim a charge on any specific item of Ittiavirah's properties and all that they have prayed for, is a decree for realisation out of Ittiavirah's assets. In these circumstances it has to be held, that the plaintiffs have not made out a ground for any relief against the 5th defendant and his properties. The latter has preferred a memorandum of cross-objection and in view of the above finding, this does not arise. It is clear that there is no decree for maintenance so far as the 5th defendant's properties are concerned. In finding the plea of discharge of Rs. 1000/- to be true, the Subordinate Judge has held, on the strength of Ext. VIII, reply notice, that the first defendant took back the sum of Rs. 1000/- with the consent of the plaintiffs' for making some other investment. There is no proof of consent of the plaintiffs, and the decree for Rs. 1000/- is against the first defendant. The plea of the 3rd defendant was simply, that the sum of Rs.1000 was returned in Dhanu,1117, as demanded by the first plaintiff and her husband, and that of the 5th defendant was that this amount was returned to the latter. The payment to him, even if true, is not a sufficient answer to the plaintiff's claim for Rs. 1000/-. Consistently with the other findings recorded in the case which were not contested before me, a decree has to be granted to the plaintiffs to recover the sura of Rs. 1000 and interest thereon at 6% per annum from the date of the suit from the assets of Ittiavirah in the hands of defendants 1 to 4. 4. With regard to the balance of Rs. 2000/- though the plaintiffs' case was one of payment in cash, the finding that the first plaintiff's mother executed a promissory note in favour of Ittiavirah towards 'stridhanam' was not disputed. The Subordinate Judge declined to give a decree to the plaintiffs for the sum of Rs. 2000/- on the ground, that the promissory note amounts only to a conditional payment and that Ittiavirah's assets cannot be charged with liability, the amount of the promissory note not having been realised. The Subordinate Judge declined to give a decree to the plaintiffs for the sum of Rs. 2000/- on the ground, that the promissory note amounts only to a conditional payment and that Ittiavirah's assets cannot be charged with liability, the amount of the promissory note not having been realised. In the reply notice issued to the first plaintiff, it was stated, that Ittiavirah's heirs were not prepared to enforce the promissory note and that the first plaintiff might take the necessary steps to collect the amount. In this appeal it was contended for the appellants, on the authority of the decision in Kulathooraiyan Chidambara Iyen v. Ananthakrishna Iyer Janardhana Iyer (1953 KLT. 768) that the execution of the promissory note amounted to payment. The question for decision in the above case was whether a promissory note executed in payment of 'varasulka' was legally enforceable or not, and it was held, following earlier Cochin cases, that it was enforceable. The court also observed that: "once a promissory note is executed, the promise to pay is performed because a promissory note amounts in law to payment." The question which arises in this appeal, is not whether the promissory note is enforceable or not, but is whether the taking of the promissory note amounts in law to actual payment. In a case decided under the Income-tax Act by a division bench of the Bombay High Court, Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. Assessee v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay Mofussil (AIR. 1950 Bombay 166) Chagla, C.J. observed thus at page 170: "The cheque merely represents an order by the drawer of the cheque to his banker to pay the amount to the person named in the cheque, and till that payment is made, the debt is not discharged. Therefore, the sending of the cheque, as I said before, ordinarily is not an unconditional discharge of the liability. The same would be the position with regard to the hundis. But I can well imagine a case where there may be an arrangement between a creditor and a debtor that the receipt of a cheque or a hundi by a creditor may result in an unconditional discharge of the debt, and in the event of the cheque or the hundi not being honoured the creditor would have no right, to sue on the original cause of action, but only on the cheque or the hundi. The privy Council has taken the same view of the law as is to be found in Commissioner of Income-Tax, B & O v. Kameshwar Singh (A.I.R.1933 P. C.108)". The Privy Council said in the case referred to: "A debtor who gives his creditor a promissory note for the sum he owes can in no sense be said to pay his creditor; but merely gives him a document or voucher of debt possessing certain legal attributes." It is unnecessary to refer to other decided cases; the law is summarised thus by Bhashyam and Adiga in Negotiable Instruments Act, Tenth Edition, Apendix C, page 597: "It is always a question of intention of parties whether a bill or note taken on account of a debt, operates as an absolute discharge of the debt or only as a conditional payment of it. Generally speaking, bill or note can never go in discharge of a debt, unless it is part of the contract that it shall be so; for, a mere promise to pay cannot be regarded as an effective payment." 5. The question - is therefore one of fact as to the intention of the parties. In that connection, it may be recalled that the case of the plaintiffs was of cash payment of the 'stridhanam' amount. There is and can be no specific case by the plaintiffs as to the intention of the parties in executing a promissory note. The fact that the first promissory note was renewed for principal and interest by the second one is immaterial. The plaintiffs cannot therefore charge Ittiavirah's assets with liability for 'stridhanam' amount amounting to Rs. 2000/ 6. The appeal is allowed to the extent of granting a decree to the plaintiffs to realise the sum of Rs. 1000/-with interest thereon at 6% per annum from the date of the suit from the assets of Ittiavirah in the hands of defendants 1 to 4. Subject to this modification, the rest of the decree passed by the Subordinate Judge is affirmed. I do not order costs in this appeal or in the memorandum of cross-objection which is also dismissed. Dismissed.