JUDGMENT R. Chandra, J. - This is a plaintiff's appeal and arises out of a suit for money. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit for the recovery of Rs. 1213121/-. It was alleged that on 13th August, 1953 an order was placed with the defendant for the supply of 150 bags (weighing 2 mds. and 30 seers each) , of D-27 sugar of Kath Kuiyan Sugar Mills Ltd., District Deoria, at the rate of Rs. 281-per mound. Under that transaction, the plaintiff paid Rs. 4501- as advance for the supply of the goods. On 9th June, 1954, the plaintiff again placed another order for the supply of 220 bags (weighing 2 mds. and 30 seers each) , of sugar of F-28 quality of Saraiyan Sugar Mills, Sardarnagar, at the rate o# Rs. 32121- per maund. Under that transaction also, Rs. 6601/- were paid as advance for the supply of the goods. The defendant failed to supply the sugar within a reasonable time. So, under the telegram dated 11th June, 1954, the plaintiff was compelled to cancel both the orders. On these grounds a decree was claimed for refund of the advance money, and damages suffered due to the defendant's conduct. 3. The defendant contested the suit on a variety of grounds. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Munsif framed the following issues : "1. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try the suit? 2. Whether time was essence of the contract? 3. Whether the plaintiffs arc entitled to any damages? If so its amount? 4. Whether defendants failed to supply sugar within reasonable time? 5. To what relief, if any, are the plaintiffs entitled? 4. On the evidence produced in the case, the trial court found that time was the essence of the contract. It was further held that the defendant failed to supply the goods within a reasonable time, which could not exceed two to three weeks. The plaintiff's claim for R. 1031- as damages, could not be proved, and so it was disallowed. Other legal pleas were decided against the defendant. The suit for the refund of the advance money namely, Rs. 11101/- was decreed. 5. Being aggrieved with that order, the defendant went up in appeal. The learn-ed Additional Sessions Judge disagked with the finding of the Munsif, that two weeks was the reasonable time for performance of the contract. Other legal pleas were decided against the defendant. The suit for the refund of the advance money namely, Rs. 11101/- was decreed. 5. Being aggrieved with that order, the defendant went up in appeal. The learn-ed Additional Sessions Judge disagked with the finding of the Munsif, that two weeks was the reasonable time for performance of the contract. He fixed that period at two months. He found that since the first transaction was cancelled under the telegram dated 17-9-1953, the plaintiff was not entitled to get back Rs. 4501/-, which he had paid as advance. As regards the second transaction, it was held that the plaintiff cancelled it on 11th June, 1954, and he was perfectly justified to do so. In this view. it was found that he was only entitled to get a refund of Rs. 6601- paid as advance under that transaction: On these findings, the decree of the trial court was modified to this extent that the plaintiff's suit was decreed for Rs. 6601- only. The claim in-respect of the item of Rs. 4501- was disallowed. 6. The present appeal is directed against the order dis-allowing the plaintiff a decree for Rs. 4501-. Similarly, the defendant has also filed a cross-objection. It relates to the item of Rs. 6601-, which was decreed by both the courts below. 7. The primary question for consideration in the present appeal was, whether.the plaintiff was entitled to get back the money which he paid as advance to the defendant, under both the transactions. 8. The admitted facts are that on August, 1953 the plaintiff placed an order with the defendant for the supply of 150 bags (weighing 2 mds. and 36 seers each). of D-27 sugar of Kath Kuiyan Sugar Mills Ltd., District Deoria, at the rate of Rs. 281-per maund. Similarly, another order was placed on 9th June 1954 for the supply of 220 bags (weighing 2 mds. and 30 seers each) , of sugar of F-28 quality of Saraiyan Sugar Mills, Sardarnagar, at the rate of s. 321-2- per maund. No time was fixed for the delivery of the goods. It was agreed'., the sugar would be supplied soon. It appears that the defendant was required to arrange for the supply of the sugar through the. Mills. The plaintiff required the sugar for business purposes and not for his personal consumption. No time was fixed for the delivery of the goods. It was agreed'., the sugar would be supplied soon. It appears that the defendant was required to arrange for the supply of the sugar through the. Mills. The plaintiff required the sugar for business purposes and not for his personal consumption. So, it was expected that the goods would be supplied within a reasonable time. What is a reasonable time it must necessarily depend upon the facts and circumstances of each particular case. The Munsif fixed the reasonable time for supply of the goods as two weeks. The lower appellate court considering the statement of the plaintiff's counsel made on the data of the issues, raised that period to two months. Since this was a mercantile contract, and no time was specifically fixed for the supply of the goods, the law required that such contract must be performed within a reasonable time. Taking into consideration the nature of the transactions and other circumstances, the lower court was perfectly justified in fixing the reasonable time for the performance of the contract, as two months. It is practically admitted that both the transactions were cancelled by the plaintiff under the telegram dated 11th June, 1954. On that date, ten months had elapsed to the first contract, and two months to the latter, which was entered into on 9-4-1954. It clearly follows, that under both the transactions the goods were not supplied within two months. The lower court also found that the defendant failed to show that the Mills -did not supply the sugar in time. It could not be proved that the sugar was not available with the Mills or there were other ,genuine difficulties of transport etc., which prevented the defendant from performing the contract, within a reasonable time. In the circumstances, breach of contract was really committed by the defendant, and not by the plaintiff. In equity, the plaintiff was entitled to get refund of the advance money, paid under the two transactions. 9. A deposit in the nature of a guarantee for the performance of a contract is forfeitable upon default made by the depositor and the forfeiture is justified if the amount is reasonable or not unreasonable. In equity, the plaintiff was entitled to get refund of the advance money, paid under the two transactions. 9. A deposit in the nature of a guarantee for the performance of a contract is forfeitable upon default made by the depositor and the forfeiture is justified if the amount is reasonable or not unreasonable. It cannot be laid down as an inflexible rule that every case of pre-payment is a security for due performance, for in certain cases the purchaser may pay some of the purchase money in advance simply to oblige the vendor. Whether a particular prepayment is a deposit strictly so-called depends upon the intention of the parties. In the instant case, there was no stipulation between the parties that the amount of advance would stand forfeited in the event of the breach of the contract. From the nature of the transaction also, it is difficult to hold that the advance was really paid as earnest money. It is well settled that a vendee who has justifiably repudiated a contract is entitled to recover the advances paid. For the reasons already given, the plaintiff is certainly entitled to get back the advance money, as also found by the trial court. 10. The lower appellate court dis-allowed the item of Rs. 4501- paid under the first transaction mainly on the ground that the plaintiff cancelled the contract under the telegram dated 17th September, 1953 (which was before the expiry of two months from the date of the contract namely 13th August, 1953) . So, the primary question for consideration is whether the first transaction was cancelled under the said telegram. It reads thus: "Mark less Kathkuiyan arrived. Seen quality much below D-27. If yours for us cant accept. Cancel contracts. Refund advance." (Vide Exh. A-4). 11. It is admitted that the goods referred to in the telegram were not sent by the defendant of the plaintiff. The plaintiff refused to accept delivery of the goods mainly on the ground that they were of inferior quality. Obviously this telegram did not relate to the transaction in suit. The defendant never cared to find out from the plaintiff if the contract dated 13th August, 1953 had really been cancelled. For all these reasons, I find it difficult to agree with the courts below that the contract dated 13th August, 1953 was really cancelled under the said telegram. Obviously this telegram did not relate to the transaction in suit. The defendant never cared to find out from the plaintiff if the contract dated 13th August, 1953 had really been cancelled. For all these reasons, I find it difficult to agree with the courts below that the contract dated 13th August, 1953 was really cancelled under the said telegram. On 11th June, 1954, an-other telegram was sent by the defendant. It reads thus: "Now too late. All sugar bargains cancelled. Refund advance plus profit." (vide Exh. 6) 12. In fact, under this telegram both the transactions entered into on 13th August, 1953 and 9th April, 1954, were cancelled. 13. As already found earlier, the plaintiff was justified in repudiating the contract as the same was not performed within a reasonable time. 14. In this view, I hold that the plaintiff-appellant is entitled to get back the entire advance money, namely Rs. 1110/-. 15. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the cross-objection dismissed with costs. The order of the lower appellate court is modified to this extent that the plaintiff's for Rs. 1110/- shall stand decreed.