Judgment :- 1. These two appeals arise out of a common judgment of the learned 5th Asst. Judge, City Civil Court. Madras, rendered in O.S. Nos. 3631 of 1966 and 3466 of 1967. For the purpose of this judgment, the parties will be referred to only as the appellant and the respondent. The appellant was the sole plaintiff in O.S. No. 3631 of 1966 and the sole defendant in O.S. No. 3466 of 1967, while the respondent was the sole plaintiff in O.S. No. 3466 of 1967 and the sole defendant in O.S. No. 3631 of 1966. Admittedly the appellant herein entered into a contract with the respondent, the Corporation of Madras, for providing R.C.C. slabs covering the storm water drain in Habibullah Road, T. Nagar, Madras, on the side walls which had been constructed earlier. Under the original contract entered into between the parties, the work was to be completed before 31st March 1965. However, the appellant herein wrote to the respondent on 29th March 1965 under Ex. A. 13, stating that the work could not be completed within the prescribed period due to non-availability of materials in time. Under those circumstances, the respondent extended the time for performance of the contract for a period of two months from 29th March 1965. Consequently, the appellant had to complete the work before 28th May 1965. Admittedly, the appellant did not complete the work on or before 28th May 1965. After series of correspondence that passed between the parties, the appellant instituted the former suit, namely, O.S. No. 3631 of 1966 for recovery of a sum Rs. 1109-85. This sum was claimed on the basis that the contract was rendered incapable of performance by the conduct of the respondent itself, since the side walls were defectively constructed and they gave way preventing the appellant from performing her obligation under the contract. The appellant had made — security deposit of Rs. 1650 and on certain bills submitted by the appellant, a sum of Rs. 525 had been retained by the respondent herein. Thus, according to the appellant, her moneys amounting to Rs.2179 (Rs. 1650 + 525) were with the respondent herein. At the same time, the appellant conceded that for the value of certain materials supplied by the respondent, credit must be given for a sum of Rs. 525 had been retained by the respondent herein. Thus, according to the appellant, her moneys amounting to Rs.2179 (Rs. 1650 + 525) were with the respondent herein. At the same time, the appellant conceded that for the value of certain materials supplied by the respondent, credit must be given for a sum of Rs. 1065-15 and after deducting the said sum, the suit was instituted for recovery of Rs. 1109-85. 2. The respondent herein resisted the suit patting forward the contention that the appellant did not complete the work as per the terms of the contract within the time stipulated, that therefore the respondent had to take steps to complete the remaining work by entrusting the same to another contractor after calling for fresh tender, and that on account of the failure of the appellant to complete the work as per the terms of the contract, the respondent incurred heavy less and damages to the tone of Rs. 6358-43. The respondent denied that the non-performance of the contract by the appellant was due to any defective side walls which prevented the appellant from performing her contract. 3. On the above pleading of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues— 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant? 2. whether the security: deposit made by the plaintiff has been for feared for the reasons stated in para 3 of the written statement? 3. To what relief, if any. is the plaintiff entitled? O.S. No. 3466 of 1967 was instituted by the respondent herein for recovery of a sum of Rs. 6898 on the same allegations referred to already. According to the respondent, it suffered loss to the extent of Rs. 6358, on account of the default committed by the appellant and the necessity for entrusting the work to another contractor. To this sum of Rs. 6358-43 was added a sum of Rs. 1065-15 being admittedly the value of the materials supplied to the appellant by the respondent. Consequently, after adjusting the retention amount of Rs. 525, the amount the respondent was entitled to was Rs. 6898-58. It is for this amount that the latter suit was instituted by the respondent. The respondent also claimed that it was entitled to forfeit the security deposit of Re. 1650 admittedly made by the appellant herein. 4. Consequently, after adjusting the retention amount of Rs. 525, the amount the respondent was entitled to was Rs. 6898-58. It is for this amount that the latter suit was instituted by the respondent. The respondent also claimed that it was entitled to forfeit the security deposit of Re. 1650 admittedly made by the appellant herein. 4. The appellant resisted the above suit putting forward the same case as she put forward in her plains. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial court framed the fallowing issues in this suit: 1. Who committed the breach of the contract, the plaintiff or defendant? 2. To what amount it the plaintiff entitled? 3. To what relief is plaintiff entitled? 5. The learned Fifth Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, by his judgment and decree dated 5th April, 1969, came to the conclusion that it was the appellant who was guilty of the breach of contract and that therefore she was liable to pay damages to the respondent herein. He also held that the respondent was entitled to forfeit the security deposit of Re. 1650 made by the appellant herein, with the result the suit instituted by the appellant, namely, O.S. No. 3681 of 1966 was dismissed and the suit instituted by the respondent; namely. O.S. No. 3466 of 1967 was decreed, K is against the above judgment and decree that the present appears have been preferred. 6. In these two appeals, the points that arise for consideration are: (1) Who was guilty of the breach of contract: whether it was the appellant or the respondent? (2) if the respondent was entitled to damages for the breach of contract, what is the quantum of damages to which it was entitled; and (3) Whether the respondent in addition to claiming damages can also forfeit the security deposit of Rs. 1650 made by the appellant herein? 7. As far as the first point is concerned, the evidence absolutely makes it clear that it was the appellant who was guilty of the breach of contract. xxxx [The discussion of facts omitted:—Ed.] Consequently, the only ground put forward by the appellant for non-performance of the contract, namely, collapse of the side walls, had not been established and hence the appellant alone was guilty of the breach of contract and not the respondent and that is my conclusion on point No. 1. 8. xxxx [The discussion of facts omitted:—Ed.] Consequently, the only ground put forward by the appellant for non-performance of the contract, namely, collapse of the side walls, had not been established and hence the appellant alone was guilty of the breach of contract and not the respondent and that is my conclusion on point No. 1. 8. As far as the second point is concerned, there had been no evidence contrary to the evidence let in on behalf of the respondent herein that in view of the failure of the appellant to fulfil the contract, the work had to be entrusted to another person after calling for tenders and that as a result of the completion of the work by that person, the respondent suffered loss to the extent of Rs. 6358- 43 xxxx [The discussion of facts is omitted:—Ed.) 9. As far as the third point is concerned, the question to be considered is, whether the respondent was entitled to claim the loss suffered by it by having the work completed by another person, in addition to forfeiting the earnest deposit of Rs. 1650 admittedly made by the appellant herein. In other words, even if the terms of the contract grant two rights to a party like the respondent, namely, to forfeit the earnest deposit and also to claim damages, the question is, in arriving at the quantum of damages, should not credit be given to the defaulting party for the earnest deposit made by that party. This question has been concluded as far as this court is concerned by a Full Bench decision of this court in the VelloreTaluk Board, by its President v. Gopala Swami Naidu 38 Mad. 801. The opinion of the Full Bench is very short and the Full Bench after referring to the decitione in Ockenden v. Benley 1858-1 E.B. and E. 485 Essex v. Daniell 1875 L.R. 10 C.P. 538 and Howe v. Smith 1884-L.R. 87 Ch. D. 98 stated— “We accordingly agree with Sadasiva Aiyar, J. and dismiss the appeal with costs.” Therefore, we have to go back to the view of Sadasiva Aiyar, J. to find out as to what exactly was the decision of the Full Bench. D. 98 stated— “We accordingly agree with Sadasiva Aiyar, J. and dismiss the appeal with costs.” Therefore, we have to go back to the view of Sadasiva Aiyar, J. to find out as to what exactly was the decision of the Full Bench. The learned Judge posed the question and answered the same as follows:— “But the question in the present case is whether, if the person for whose benefit the forfeiture clause was entered in the contract did not content himself with retaining the deposit as a forfeiture but send for the actual loss incurred by him through the default of the other party on the ground that the deposit amount (Which according to all the English cases was security for the due performance of the contract by the defaulter) was insufficient to cover such a loss or on the ground that the contract provided for both the forfeiture of the deposit and also for the right to recover the loss, whether in such a case the plaintiff was not legally bound to give credit to the deposit money and whether he could recover more than the difference between the damages incurred and the deposit money. I am inclined to bold that the plaintiff in such a case cannot recover more than the difference between the loss incurred by him and the deposit money.” The learned Judge in support of the above opinion of his referred to Mayne on Damages as well as so the decision of Ockenden v. Benly 1858-1 E.B. and E. 485 referred to already. 10. The obvious rationale behind such judgment is, where a breach of contract has been committed, the party not in default is entitled only to receive damages or compensation for the loss which he or it suffered as a consequence of the other party committing default and the very notion of damages or compensation for the loss suffered will exclude the idea of the said party making any profit out of the breach committed by the other party. If it is to be held that the party not in default is entitled to claim the whole of the toss it suffered and also to forfeit the security deposit, he will be getting more than the compensation to which he is entitled or in other words, he will be making a profit out of the breach committed by the other party. That is the reason why the Full Bench of this court took the above view. The said decision is binding on me. The learned counsel for the respondent was not able to bring to my notice any decision of the Privy Council or the Supreme Court overrating the above decision or a decision of a Fuller Beach of this court taking a view different from the view of the Full Bench referred to already. Under these circumstances, following the judgment of the Full Bench, I must hold that the respondent herein, while claiming damages from the appellant herein by way of compensation for the loss suffered by it, as a result of the breach of contract committed by the appellant, must give credit for the suns of Rs. 1630 deposited by the appellant as security deposit. If so, in O.S. No. 3466 of 1967, the respondent herein would be entitled to a decree for Rs. 6898-85 minus Rs. 1650 that if, Rs. 5248-58 only. 11. Since the security deposit made by the appellant had been taken into account in arriving at the amount to which the respondent was entitled, the appellant herein will not be entitled to obtain a separate decree for the return of the said security deposit in the sail filed by her. 12. The result is, the judgment of the trial court is modified to the extent indicated above and O.S. No. 3631 of 1966 instituted by the appellant herein will stand dismissed nod O.S. No. 3466 of 1967 will stand decreed for Rs. 5248-58 instead of Rs. 6898-58 as prayed for and decreed by the trial court. There will be no order as to costs in either appeal.