Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.- This appeal is by Sivarama Prasad Bahadur, the defendant in O.S. No. 84 of 1952, on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore, against the decree and judgment in the suit. That was a suit filed by Srinivasa Traders by family manager, P. S. Narayanan, for recovering the advance of Rs. 12,500 paid by them on 9th June, 1951, to the appellant for the supply of 500 bags of free market Voyyur sugar at Rs. 177-8-0 per bag, plus sales-tax. Admittedly, the contract was never performed. We need not here consider by whose fault it fell through. The appellant was asked finally by the plaintiffs, by a letter, dated 14th September, 1951, Exhibit A-5 to pay back the advance of Rs. 12,500 with interest, as the contract stood cancelled. The appellant failed to do so. Then the suit was filed. In his written statement, the appellant contended that the plaintiffs had committed breach of the contract, and that he was entitled to get damages of Rs. 13,500 from them, and was entitled to retain the advance of Rs. 12,500 and adjust it towards the damages. But he did not file a suit for damages, or even claim a set-off in this suit on that account. Consequently there was no issue regarding that. There were only issues regarding jurisdiction and other matters. The learned Subordinate Judge granted a decree in favour of the plaintiffs for Rs. 12,500, with interest at six per cent. per annum from 6th March, 1952, the date of the plaint. Hence this appeal. We have perused the records, and heard the learned counsel on both sides. Mr. R. Gopalaswami Ayyangar, for the appellant, and Mr. Srinivasagopalachari, for the plaintiffs respondents, argued the case fully and fairly. Mr. Gopalaswami Avyangar urged that the lower Court’s decree was wrong, as the plaintiffs had committed breach of contract and were liable to pay Rs. 13,500 to the appellant for damages as mentioned by him in his written statement. We agree with Mr. Srinivasagopalachari that this contention cannot hold good, as the appellant did not file a suit for damages, or even claim a set-off in this suit by paying the Court-fee on Rs. 13,500 mentioned in the written statement, and get a decree. The next contention of Mr. Gopalaswami Ayyangar was that the lower Court’s decree was wrong as the advance amount of Rs. 13,500 mentioned in the written statement, and get a decree. The next contention of Mr. Gopalaswami Ayyangar was that the lower Court’s decree was wrong as the advance amount of Rs. 12,500 could be retained by the appellant as security for damages in a suit intended to be filed by him for damages. That position is clearly untenable, as urged by Mr. Srinivasagopalachari. It is well settled that money paid as advance by a purchaser to the vendor, in circumstances like this, cannot be retained as security, vide the ruling of a Bench of this Court in Ratamma v. Krishnamurthi1, which ruling has been followed by another Bench of this Court recently in Sundararama Iyer &38; Co. v. Murugesa Mudaliar2. So we reject this contention also. The last contention of Mr. Gopalaswami Ayyangar was that at any rate, interest should not have been awarded by the lower Court on the advance of Rs. 12,500, as there was no proof of a promise to pay interest, or of long detention of money with the implied understanding or liability to pay interest, and that interest could not be given till demand. We agree that interest was not payable till demand: but the demand was made, admittedly, on 14th September, 1951. The lower Court has given interest only from 6th March. 1952, the date of the plaint. As the plaintiffs have not filed a memorandum of cross-objections regarding the date from which interest was given they cannot claim interest now except from 6th March, 1952, though under the law, they would be entitled to claim interest from 14th September, 1951. The 6 per cent. interest awarded by the lower Court was then attacked as too high in the circumstances. It is, in our opinion, somewhat high, in the circumstances, and we reduce it to 3 per cent. Mr. Gopalaswami Ayyangar said that instead of depositing the money in Court along with the plaint for damages, the appellant had only kept the money with himself. But it makes a world of difference. The money kept by the appellant could have been, and was very probably, used by him and would have yielded some interest, at least 3 per cent. per annum, considering that even the Government of India and the Post Office give 4 per cent. interest on gilt-edged securities. The money deposited in Court cannot be used by the party depositing them. per annum, considering that even the Government of India and the Post Office give 4 per cent. interest on gilt-edged securities. The money deposited in Court cannot be used by the party depositing them. That is a vital difference. Again, the Court would invest such large sums in Government securities and the net interest got would not be less than 3 per cent. per annum. So, we have no hesitation in awarding interest at 3 per cent. per annum from 6th March, 1952. In the view we have taken, it is unnecessary to go into question as to who was responsible for the contract not going through. In the end, we modify the judgment and decree of the lower Court by granting the plaintiff a decree for Rs. 12,500 with interest at 3 per cent. per annum from the date of suit, 6th March, 1952, till the date of realisation, and by directing the defendant to pay the plaintiffs only proportionate costs on the sum so decreed. In other respects, the lower Court’s judgment and decree are confirmed. In this appeal, we direct all the parties to bear their own costs. P.R.N. ----- Decree modified as to rate of interest and confirmed in other respects.