Judgment 1. This appeal is by defendant No. 1. A money suit was filed against him by the plaintiff-respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1541/15/-annas on the basis of a handnote admittedly executed by him on 4-7-1959 for a sum of Rs. 1133/11/- annas in favour of Dhir Narain Chand, the father of the plaintiff. It has been stated in the plaint, inter alia, that the plaintiffs father had expressed his desire in presence of the defendant second party that the amount in respect of this loan would go to the plaintiff alone to which the defendant second party expressly consented. The defendant second party are the two widows of Dhir Narain Chand aforesaid. 2. Defendant No. 1 filed a written statement and contested the suit on various grounds, inter alia, that the plaintiff being not the holder of the handnote in question, she had no right to institute the suit in question. As it is only this question that is falling for my consideration, it is not necessary to advert to any other defence put forward on behalf of the defendant. The trial court accepted the defence and dismissed the suit but on appeal, however, the learned Additional Subordinate Judge has decreed the same and, therefore, this second appeal has been filed by defendant No. 1. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge has overcome this plea of the appellant on the ground that the plaintiff was an heir of Dhir Narain Chand who had every right to make arrangement and partition the assets among his heirs. On referring to the evidence and the circumstances on record, he has held that the plaintiffs father did make such an arrangement according to which this debt was made realisable by the plaintiff alone. 3. In my opinion, the court of appeal below has committed an apparent error of law in decreeing the suit. Under the provisions of Section 78 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, payment of the amount due on a promissory note etc. in order to discharge the maker or acceptor thereof must be made to the holder of the instrument or if the same is endorsed then to the endorsee as provided u/s. 82 (c) of the Act which is not the case here. The provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act are very specific. 4. in order to discharge the maker or acceptor thereof must be made to the holder of the instrument or if the same is endorsed then to the endorsee as provided u/s. 82 (c) of the Act which is not the case here. The provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act are very specific. 4. Admittedly in this case the handnote in question is not indorsed in favour of the plaintiff nor does the recital in any way indicate the intention of the creditor for the payment of the ultimate dues by the debtor to the plaintiff. The term "Holder" has been defined in Section 8 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, according to which the holder of a promissory note, inter alia, means a person entitled in his own name to the possession thereof and to receive or recover the amount due thereon from the parties thereto. Admittedly, therefore, the plaintiff does not answer any of the descriptions mentioned above and the defendant was not bound to make the payment to her of the dues in question and as such the plaintiff has no right to institute the suit. It is not a case either of any transfer of this debt or claim which under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act would be an "actionable claim" by the father to the plaintiff. In view of the provisions of Sec.130 of the Transfer of Property Act the transfer of an actionable claim has to be effected only by the execution of an instrument in writing signed by the transferor or his duly authorised agent and only thereafter the rights and remedies of the transferor is to vest in the transferee. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge, therefore, was not right in referring to any other mode of supposed arrangement by the father of the plaintiff and the different members of the family which did not answer this requirement of law. Reference may be made to a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Harkishore Barua V/s. Gura Mia Chowdhry, AIR 1931 Cal 367. As the provisions of the enactments referred to above themselves are clear, it is not necessary to cite any further authority in support of my views. 5. I would accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the court of appeal below and restore the order of dismissal of the suit passed by the trial court. As the provisions of the enactments referred to above themselves are clear, it is not necessary to cite any further authority in support of my views. 5. I would accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the court of appeal below and restore the order of dismissal of the suit passed by the trial court. As there is no appearance on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent, there shall be no order as to costs.