JUDGMENT : STANLEY, J. This is an appeal from a decree directing the sale of lands belonging to the defendant-appellant for the realisation of the amount stated to be due to the plaintiffs-respondents on foot of three mortgage-deeds which are stated in the plaint. The question before us arises upon the language of one of these mortgages, namely, a mortgage of the 26th of November, 1888, to secure a principal sum of Rs. 1,500 payable by annual instalments of Rs. 300 each, without interest. According to the mortgage-deed if the instalments had been duly paid, the debt would have been discharged on the 26th of November, 1893. The deed contains a covenant on the part of the mortgagor substantially to the following effect, that if the mortgagor failed to pay any annual instalment in whole or in part, then the mortgagees should be at liberty to cancel the arrangement as to the payment by instalments and should have the right, therefore, to realize the amount due from the person and also from the property of the mortgagor, including the hypothecated property with interest, at the rate of 9 per cent, per annum. The instalments were not punctually paid; on the contrary we find that payments on foot of the mortgage were made most irregularly as appears from the account appended to the plaint. These payments are also endorsed upon the mortgage-deeds. We find that on the 26th of July, 1892, a sum of Rs. 470 was paid. This sum and the sums previously paid amount in the aggregate to Rs. 900, that is, to the three instalments which were payable before and up to the 26th of November, 1891. Now it is obvious that the plaintiffs, mortgagees, did not exercise the option which they had under the document of enforcing payment of their mortgage debt on breach of the covenant entered into by the mortgagor for punctual payment of the instalments which became payable on the 26th of November, 1889, 26th of November, 1890, and the 26th of November, 1891. Instead of proceeding for the recovery of their debt as they might have done, they accepted the irregular payments to which we have referred and waived their right to cancel the arrangement entered into for payment by instalments. Therefore, on the 26th of July, 1892, two instalments only of Rs. 300 each remained due, that is, Rs. 600. Instead of proceeding for the recovery of their debt as they might have done, they accepted the irregular payments to which we have referred and waived their right to cancel the arrangement entered into for payment by instalments. Therefore, on the 26th of July, 1892, two instalments only of Rs. 300 each remained due, that is, Rs. 600. From that time forward no payment on foot of principal has been made, but a payment of Rs. 135 was made. This sum was not appropriated to the payment of principal, but, as appears by an acknowledgment signed by the mortgagor on the mortgage-deed, was paid for interest. The Courts below held that by reason of the irregu-larity in the payments made by the mortgagors the mortgagees are now entitled in this suit to recover interest at the rate of 9 percent, upon the principal amount of the mortgage from its date; that is, that the mortgagees can enforce the option which was given to them of cancelling the arrangement as to the payment by instalments ab initio and enforcing their power of realizing their money with interest. We cannot accept this view. It is clear that the mortgagees accepted the irregular payments as payments made in satisfaction of the covenant of the mortgagor, and they must be, we think, taken under the circumstances to have waived their right to enforce the penalty which they had an option to enforce under the document. If authority were needed for this it is to be found in the case of Badha Prasad Singh v. Bhagwan Rai,[1883] I.L.R., 5 All., 289. We must allow this appeal and modify the decree of the Courts below in regard to the sum found to be payable under the mortgage of the 26th of November, 1888. The sum which is now properly payable under that document is the principal sum of Rs. 600 with interest at the rate of 9 per cent, per annum from the 26th of November, 1891, up to the date of payment, after allowing credit for the sum of Rs. 135 already paid for interest. The decree must be modified accordingly. The amount due on the mortgage of the 26th of November, 1888, will be calculated in the office on the basis which we have indicated and the total amount to which the plaintiffs-respondents are entitled will be modified accordingly. 135 already paid for interest. The decree must be modified accordingly. The amount due on the mortgage of the 26th of November, 1888, will be calculated in the office on the basis which we have indicated and the total amount to which the plaintiffs-respondents are entitled will be modified accordingly. We extend the time for payment of the sum which shall he ascertained to be due up to the 20th of July, 1906. The appellant is entitled to his costs of this appeal, including fees in this Court on the higher scale. As regards the costs in the Courts below the parties will pay and receive costs proportionate to failure and success.