JUDGMENT 1. The appeal relates only to one installment of the debt due. The appellants Vakil says it may be taken to mean the last or 8th installment. On the construction of the document A, we are of opinion that the appellants contention is well founded. There is no provision in the document that, in default of payment of any of the installments, the whole debt shall become due. When default is committed, the creditor is entitled to sell the property and apply the proceeds of the sale to the balance of the debt due. We are of opinion that the word due in the context means payable. The whole debt was not due in this case at the same time. This is made clear by the next provision, that, if the sale does not realize what is due to the creditor, the debtors other properties might be proceeded against for the balance then due. We must, therefore, allow the appeal and modify the decree of the lower-Court by dismissing the suit so far as it relates to the last installment with proportionate costs thereon both here and in the lower Court. The plaintiff will have his costs in the lower Court on the remainder of the claim. The appellant will not have any costs in this Court on the portion of the appeal relating to costs.