Gokul Prasad, J.:— It appears that on the 17th of July 1905 Bhagwan and Sumer, members of a joint Hindu family, executed a mortgage-deed in favour of the plaintiff. The period fixed in the deed for redemption was ten years. Interest was to be payable annually and in the case of default in payment of interest for any year, the mortgagee had the option of suing for the whole of the mortgage money. Although there was default in the payment of interest in the very first year after the mortgage, the plaintiff mortgagee brought his suit for sale after the expiry of the ben years.
2. He claimed a relief both against the persons of the mortgagors and the mortgaged property. To this suit the plaintiff-appellant impleaded the other members of the family of the mortgagors. The lower appellate Court has held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the debt was taken for legitimate family purposes and it has therefore dismissed the suit for sale. As to the personal relief, the learned Judge has arrived at the conclusion that “the executant are no doubt personally liable for the debts bub the personal relief is time barrad.” In this we think the learned Judge of the Court below was in error. The plaintiff mortgagee was 1 not bound to sue for the whole of the mortgage money as soon as there was failure in payment of installment of any year. It was open to him to do so or not. In this be did not choose to exercise the option and in our opinion he could wait for ten years, the period fixed in the mortgage-dead, before bringing his suit. This period expired on the 17th of July, 1916. The present suit was brought within three years of that date. We are therefore of opinion that the Court below erred in saying that the claim against the persons of the mortgagors was barred by time. We therefore allow the appeal so far that we modify the decree of the Court below by decreeing the claim of the plaintiff-appellant against the person of the mortgagors Bhagwan Singh and Sumer Singh with costs in all Courts.
3. Appeal decreed.