1. In this appeal the first question that arises, and one which formed the leading part of the argument in appeal, was that the vendors lien in this case had been given up by a contract to the contrary. The plaintiffs husband sold certain property to defendant 1 and a sum of Rs. 10,000 was not paid in cash, but a promissory note was executed for the amount. It is, of course, possible that the parties might have intended that this promissory note by itself should form part of the consideration and that they would not treat the Rs. 10,000 as unpaid purchase money. The only question is whether, in the present instance, that was the intention of the parties. It is clear that this intention is negatived; by the recital in the sale-deed by which the vendee was not to alienate the property until the promissory note had been discharged. If the lien was abandoned, this provision is perfectly useless, for it can only be of use in order to enforce such a lien. That lien is given by statute and continues until there is a contract between the parties that it shall cease. Even the fact that the renewal of the first promissory note is taken in the name of the vendor and his wife for eithe