Judgment :- 1. The plaintiff is the appellant: The facts leading to this appeal are the following: The second defendant is her husband. Their marriage took place on 29-1-1963. Previous to that on 10-1-1963 there was a marriage engagement and at that time the plaintiff's father entrusted to Lazar, the second defendant's father, Rs.6,001/- as Sreedhanam amount for plaintiff's benefit. Out of that a sum of Rs. 2,226/- had been utilised for making ornaments to the plaintiff. The plaintiff's case is the balance sum of Rs. 3,775/- was agreed to be paid to her on demand after three years and this promise was made by the second defendant's father on 8-2-1963. Though the plaintiff asked for the payment of the amount the second defendant's father promised to pay the same without delay. But he could not fulfil the promise as he died on 17-9-1966. Thereafter there was a karar entered into between the children of this Lazar regarding the partition of his assets and liabilities. This sum of Rs. 3,775/- was specifically mentioned as an item to be paid to her. But even thereafter the amount was not paid and alleging these the plaintiff filed the suit in 1968 for recovery of this amount with interest. The brothers of the second defendant, namely, defendants 1,3, 4 and 5 denied the entrustment and the promise said to have been made by Lazar on 8-2-1963 They alleged that mention in the karar dated 30-4-1967 of this sum of Rs. 3,775/- was as a result of fraud, mis¬representation and coercion on the part of the second defendant. Further the plaintiff is not a party to the karar and all the executants have withdrawn from the provisions of the karar and hence the plaintiff is not entitled to rely on the same. The payment and receipt of Streedhanam are prohibited under law and hence even if any amount is paid as Streedhanam the plaintiff is not entitled to recover the same. In any event it was contended that the suit is barred by limitation. The trial court decreed the suit. On appeal the lower court has dismissed the suit and hence this Second Appeal. 2. When the Second Appeal came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge the correctness of the decision in Thoma v. Sarakutty (1975 KLT. In any event it was contended that the suit is barred by limitation. The trial court decreed the suit. On appeal the lower court has dismissed the suit and hence this Second Appeal. 2. When the Second Appeal came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge the correctness of the decision in Thoma v. Sarakutty (1975 KLT. 386) was questioned and hence this was adjourned for hearing by a Division Bench That is how this case is being considered by us. 3. Though the contesting defendants denied that any amount was paid as Streedhanam to the plaintiff at the time of her marriage, the concurrent finding entered into by the two courts that Rs. 6,001/- was entrusted to Lazar and that out of that only a sum of Rs. 2,226/- had been utilised for the plaintiff's benefit is justified by the evidence in this case. The karar that was entered into by the children of Lazar after his death is marked Ext. A-5. Though the contesting respondents dispute its validity there is no evidence to prove that the case was entered into as a result of any fraud or mis-representation. Ext. A-5 clearly mentions that a sum of Rs. 3,775/- being the balance of Streedhanam amount has to be returned to the plaintiff. This is treated as a liability to be discharged from the assets of the deceased Lazar. This clearly proves the plaintiff's case that Rs. 3,775/- is the balance of the Streedhanam amount to be accounted for from the estate of the deceased Lazar. 4. After stating that this amount is due to her from the deceased Lazar in the plaint she pleaded that Lazar had on 8- 2-1963 promised to return this amount with interest after three years. It is wrong to read it as a claim based on loan alone. Even if there was any doubt in the trial court regarding the basis of the claim, the plaintiff made the alternate position clear and the lower appellate court was wrong in rejecting the application for amending the plaint. As rightly pointed out by the lower courts, the loan part of the case has not been proved by the plaintiff. But the fact remains that all the averments for the alternate claim have been set out, that is, that at the time of her marriage Rs. As rightly pointed out by the lower courts, the loan part of the case has not been proved by the plaintiff. But the fact remains that all the averments for the alternate claim have been set out, that is, that at the time of her marriage Rs. 6,001/- was paid as Streedhanam and this amount was entrusted with the deceased Lazar. That this is an entrustment and the person who received it has to account the same to the plaintiff is not open to challenge. Parties are governed by the Cochin Christian Succession Act. Under that Act the nature of the Streedhanam paid to a female at the time of her marriage and the extent of the share which she is entitled to inherit from her father's or mother's estate are clearly stated. 5. S.3 of Act 6 of 1097 (Cochin) defines Streedhanam as follows: " "Streedhanam" means any property given to a woman, or in trust for her to her husband, his parent, or guardian, in connection with her marriage, and in fulfilment of a term of the marriage treaty in that behalf." Ss 21 and 22 read as follows: "21 (a) For the purposes of determining the share of a woman or her lineal descendants, as the case may be, at the intestacy of her father, mother or paternal grandfather when a Streedhanam had been given or contracted to be given, to or in trust for her, by any of her said ascendants whomsoever, the amount for her Streedhanam, or its value at the date of its intestacy. if it was not money, shall be brought into hotchpot. Proviso (1): Nothing in this section shall be construed to make a woman or her lineal descendant liable to refund any portion of her Streedhanam or its value. Proviso (2): When the Streedhanam of a woman has been once brought into hotchpot and a share given or become due as provided in this section it shall not be brought into hotchpot again at any subsequent intestacy. (b) The Streedhanam which an intestate contracted to give shall be a charge on his estate." "22. Proviso (2): When the Streedhanam of a woman has been once brought into hotchpot and a share given or become due as provided in this section it shall not be brought into hotchpot again at any subsequent intestacy. (b) The Streedhanam which an intestate contracted to give shall be a charge on his estate." "22. Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Act, when a Streedhanam has been given or contracted to be given by the father, mother, paternal grand father or the paternal grand-mother, of a woman, to or in trust for her, neither the said woman nor any lineal descendant of her as such, shall be entitled to a distributive share in the property of any of them dying intestate, if (1) a brother of the said woman being a lineal descendant of the intestate, or (2) the lineal descendants of such brother, survive the intestate." 6. In the Cochin Act Streedhanam is defined as property given to a woman in connection with her marriage and in fulfilment of a marriage treaty in that behalf This has given room for a criticism that this will partake the character of 'dowry' as defined in the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. In the latter 'Dowry' is defined as follows: "In this Act,' dowry" means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly... (a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or (b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person; at or before the marriage as consideration for the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies. Explanation I For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any presents made at the time of marriage to either party to the marriage in the form of cash, ornaments, clothes or other articles, shall not be deemed to be dowry within the meaning of this section, unless they are made as consideration for the marriage of the said parties. Explanation II. Explanation II. The expression 'valuable security" has the same meaning as in S.30 of the Indian Penal Code " If any property is given or agreed to be given by either party or their parents to the other party as consideration for the marriage of the said parties that will constitute dowry. The explanation makes it clear that any gift made to either party to a marriage shall not be deemed to be a dowry unless they are made as consideration for the marriage of the said parties. Reading the two Acts together where payment is made or property is given on the occasion of the marriage to a female, entitled to a share under the Succession Act this happens only on intestacy that may be capable of being understood only as handing over of her share is the estate at the time of marriage and as such is. not a consideration for the marriage. In other cases it is a question of fact according to the circumstance of each case whether the payment made or property given is in consideration of the marriage hit by the Dowry Prohibition Act. Among the people of this community, like other communities, payment made or property given at the time of the marriage to a female by her relations is on the increase in spite of Dowry Prohibition Act and social reformers. In an arranged marriage the father or guardian of the girl always would like to choose prosperous or would be prosperous bride-groom and everything thereafter is reckoned in terms of money. Now-a-days the rate is proportional to the qualification or status of the bride-groom. An I. A.S., I.P.S. or Class I Service man. a Doctor, an Engineer, a Scientist or Foreign returned man, an Estate Manager is offered easily an amount going to one or two six digit figures. Unless the younger generation takes up this matter this social evil will remain a bane of society. In such cases the payment made or property given becomes nothing but a consideration for the marriage. Call it by Streedhanam or any name, it is dowry as per the definition in the Dowry Prohibition Act. In this case there is no evidence regarding the circumstances under which the plaintiff's father gave Rs. 6,001/- to Lazar. There is no evidence to show that this was a consideration for the marriage. Call it by Streedhanam or any name, it is dowry as per the definition in the Dowry Prohibition Act. In this case there is no evidence regarding the circumstances under which the plaintiff's father gave Rs. 6,001/- to Lazar. There is no evidence to show that this was a consideration for the marriage. So it is only a Streedhanam in the ordinary sense, i. e. a gift of money or property given to a female before, at or after marriage. It is unnecessary to dial ate more into this aspect of the matter because whether the amount is treated as Streedhanam within the meaning of the Cochin Christian Succession Act or 'dowry' within the meaning of the Dowry Prohibition Act both these enactments clearly state that the amount received by her husband, his parent or guardian shall be kept by him in trust for her. In other words Streedhanam is always the property of the woman whoever is given custody of the same. Woman can always claim it back and enforce the return of it. In this view the decision of Khalid, J. in Thoma v. Sarakutty (1975 KLT. 386) cannot be said to be correct. S.6 of that Act is not noticed there A suit for recovering this amount will not be hit by the Dowry Prohibition Act. 7. It follows that even if the plaintiff fails to prove the specific agreement pleaded, since the suit is not framed purely as a suit for return of the amount on the basis of the loan, the alternative basis of claim can be sustained. 8. Then the question will be whether the suit is barred by limitation. The amount is seen to have been paid on 10-1-1963. The character of the Streedhanam being in the nature of a payment in trust, and a suit for recovery of that amount is not governed by any specific article of the Limitation Act, the residuary Art.120 (old) or 113 (new) will apply. The period starts from the time the right to sue accrues. A right to sue in this case is equivalent to the cause of action. The cause of action will arise only when there is a demand and a clear denial of the right or unequivocal threat to that right During the life-time of Lazar there was no refusal to pay. A right to sue in this case is equivalent to the cause of action. The cause of action will arise only when there is a demand and a clear denial of the right or unequivocal threat to that right During the life-time of Lazar there was no refusal to pay. On the contrary the allegation is that he was making promises to pay although he failed to keep up those promises. The mere failure to pay when the defendants were always promising to pay cannot be regarded as an infringement of the plaintiff's right or any clear and unequivocal threat to infringe that right. In the present suit when the defendants in their reply dated 26-4-1968 repudiated their liability the cause of action arose. The suit is filed immediately thereafter and hence is in time. Even if the right to sue accrued on the date of the marriage 29-1-1963 the plaintiff has six years under Art.120 (old) of the Limitation Act. The suit is filed before the expiry of that period and hence under S.30 of the new Act the suit is within time. It follows that there is no bar of limitation for the suit. In the result this second appeal is allowed, the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court are set aside and that of the trial court restored to file. In the circumstances of this ease the parties shall bear their costs. Allowed.