JUDGMENT Roy, J. - This Second Appeal came up before a learned single Judge of this Court, and he has referred it to a Bench for decision on account of the importance of the question involved. The question is whether the amount deposited in the present case, was a "loan" as defined in S. 2 (10) (a) of the UP Agriculturists Relief Act, 1934, so as to make certain other provisions of that Act applicable. It appears that on 1-12-1943 a sum of Rs. 4,000 had been deposited by Smt. Bhagirathi Devi the Plaintiff with Sahu Ram Raghubir Saran, the Defendant. At the time of the deposit, Sahu Ram Raghubir Saran executed a document in the following terms: On demand I promise to pay Smt. Bhagirathi Devi w/o Lala Dharam Prakash of Moradabad the sum of Rs. 4,000 only with interest at twelve annas per cent per month for the sum deposited with me. 2. The Defendant Sahu Raghubir Saran affixed this document with four revenue stamps of one anna each and signed over the same. When the suit was brought for the refund of the deposit with interest thereon, the Plaintiff made an express statement in the plaint that the amount had been kept in trust with the Defendant and that certain interest had been paid, but the balance of Rs. 4,000 towards principal and Rs. 60 towards interest remained outstanding. The Defendant, inter alia, pleaded that the transaction was in substance a loan; that the Defendant was an agriculturist and he was entitled to the benefits of the UP Agriculturists' Relief Act and since copy of the document aforesaid had not been given to the Defendant and regular accounts had not been maintained by the creditor, the creditor was not entitled to any interest and the amounts paid should be appropriated towards the principal. The trial court held that the transaction was not, in substance, a loan but it was a deposit in the nature of a trust, which was repayable on demand with interest and consequently, the UP Agriculturists' Relief Act was not applicable to such a transaction. The trial court granted the Plaintiff a decree in the sum of Rs. 3,678 with certain interest and costs in terms of an agreed solution reached between the parties. The agreed solution was, however, subject of(sic) the decision on the other point stated above. The trial court granted the Plaintiff a decree in the sum of Rs. 3,678 with certain interest and costs in terms of an agreed solution reached between the parties. The agreed solution was, however, subject of(sic) the decision on the other point stated above. The lower appellate court, on the other hand, came to the conclusion that the transaction was in substance a 'loan', as defined in the Act but the Defendant No. 1 was not an agriculturist for the purposes of S. 39 of the Act. The lower appellate court, accordingly granted the Plaintiff, a decree for Rs. 4,060 with full costs. 3. The term 'loan' has been defined in S. 2(10) (a) of the agriculturists' Relief Act, 1934 as follows: Loan means an advance to an agriculturist, whether of money or in kind, and shall include any transaction which is insubstance a loan but shall not include...... 4. The question that arises is whether in the circumstances of the present case, there was an advance to an agriculturist, of money. Mr. Gupta who appeared for the Respondents, contended that there was no advance at all and that the money that was kept with the Defendant by the Plaintiff, was a deposit and was kept in trust, which the Defendant was bound to return to the Plaintiff, when demanded. Mr. Saxena, on the other hand, has contended chat although it was in the nature of deposit, yet it was, in substance, a loan because it was evidenced by a promissory-note. A certain amount of distinction must be drawn between the term 'deposit' and the term 'loan' as contained in the Act. The term 'deposit' has, of course, not been defined under the UP Agriculturists' Relief Act, and the Act takes note of a 'loan' made to an agriculturist, such loan meaning an advance to the agriculturist whether of money or in kind. The word 'deposit' as distinguished from a 'laon' may refer to cases where money is lodged with another under an express trust or under circumstances from which a trust can be implied. There seems to be some difference between "money lent" and "money deposited" and one can only assume that in a case where money is deposited in trust, it will not be a loan, as defined in the UP Agriculturists' Relief Act. There seems to be some difference between "money lent" and "money deposited" and one can only assume that in a case where money is deposited in trust, it will not be a loan, as defined in the UP Agriculturists' Relief Act. In this view of the matter, we are of opi nion that at the time when the money passed into the hands of the Defendant, it constituted a "deposit" and not a 'loan' and, consequently, the provisions of the UP Agriculturists' Relief Act would not be applicable to the case. 5. In this view of the matter, the Plaintiff was entitled to the recovery of the entire amount decreed by the lower appellate court. The appeal, in our opinion, has no force and it must be dismissed with costs.