Phillips, J.

1. The lower appellate Court has found that the plaintiff committed default in respect of a contract to purchase 1501 bags of rice from the first defendant. The plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 6,000 in advance and the lower appellate Court has held that the plaintiff is entitled to return of this money after deducting certain sums which the defendant is entitled to retain. The 2nd defendant (widow of first defendant) now appeals and contends that she is entitled to retain the whole Rs. 6,000 on the ground that it was paid as deposit. This question of whether it was paid as a deposit has not been raised in either of the lower Courts ; but the appellant relies on certain cases for the proposition that whenever money is paid in advance on account of a contract, the vendor is entitled on breach of contract to retain the whole sum. That is the effect of the rulings cited where the money has been paid as deposit. In Roshan Lal v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. (1911) 33 All. 166 where earnest money was paid and in Bishan Chand v. Radha Kishan Das (1897) 19 All. 489 where a deposit was paid, it was held that the vendor was entitled to retain the money deposited on breac