both the suit and it is those defendants who have preferred these two second appeals. Each of the said suits is for recovery of an identical sum of Rs.3,108-50. In each of the two cases, it is claimed that the appellants have received the abovesaid sums as advance amount under the relevant suit sale agreement under which the said defendants are vendors, and the respective plaintiffs are purchasers.

2. Though both the suits were dismissed by the trial Court, in the first appeals filed by the respective plaintiffs/respondents herein namely, A.S.No.13 and 14 of 1982 respectively, respective suits have been decreed as prayed for. Aggrieved by the said decrees, the abovesaid defendants have preferred these two second appeals. The only submission of the learned counsel for the defendants/appellants is that the said amount in each of the two cases was given as earnest money and so it gets forfeited cannot be recovered back by the plaintiff in each case. On the other hand, the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent in each case is that it is only advance money and not earnest money, and that hence the decree granted by the lower appellate court is correct.

3. 1 have