1. The plaintiffs are the appellants and they appeal from a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Bogra, reversing a decision of the Munsif. The suit was on an instalment mortgage-bond. The first Court decreed the suit and the secandvdii-missed it on the ground of limitation, I think the judgment appealed from is quite correct. The case depends on the construction of the mortgage in which there is a provision that if by lazinasa in payment of money of any kist of the kistibundi we (that is, the mortgagors) makes default of one kist then all the kitts being taken as defaulted the mortgagors shall pay interest at the rate of Rs. 6 40 per month from the date of default of the kist up to the year of final payment.' I think that clearly means that, in the event of default being made in payment of one kist, the whole of the amount is to be paid and interest is to be paid on the whole amount.
2. It is said that this is not so and that there is no provision such as one would expect to find that, in the event of default, the whole sum should become due. But we must constructed document as a whole and I think, upon the correct interpretation of the document, the intention of the parties seems clear. This being so, and inasmush as the default was made in the payment of the his for 1309, the suit whish was not commenced until long after the expiration of twelve years from the date of default, is clearly barred by limitation.
3. The result is, that the judgment of the lower Appellate Court is correct and the appeal must accordingly be dismissed with costs.
4. I agree.