( 1 ) THIS is a defendants special appeal arising out of a suit for the recovery of the entire amount due on a bond executed by the defendants on 20th September 1931. The bond was payable in 18 six monthly instalments which were to fall due in the months of Aghan and Jeth every year. The last instalment fell due on 19th June, 1940. The bond contained three stipulations as follows : 1. If any instalment was not paid then from the date of the default upto the date of payment of that instalment interest at annas eight per cent per mensem was payable on the amount of the instalment;

( 2 ) IF there was any default in payment of two successive instalments the creditor was to have a right to realise the principal and the interest due on those two instalments which remained unpaid; and

( 3 ) IF the creditor so desired he could realise the entire amount of the bond on default of payment of all the instalments.

2. It is the admitted case of the parties that the defendants did not pay any instalment. The present suit was brought by the creditor on and June 1943, that is, within three years of the default of the last instalment claiming the entire amount of the bond with interest. The plaintiffs case was that the defendants having made default in payment of all the instalments the entire amount of the bond fell due on 19th June, 1940 and so they were entitled to a decree for the entire amount.

3. The main defence taken in the case was that the suit was barred by limitation.

( 4 ) THE trial Court upheld the defendants plea and decreed the suit for the last instalment only on the ground that the case was covered by the provisions of Article 74 of the Indian Limitation act. On appeal, the learned Civil and Sessions Judge, Kanpur decreed the plaintiffs suit for the entire amount holding that it was within time and that the suit was governed by Article 80 of the indian Limitation Act. The matter came up ,in second appeal before this Court and the learned single Judge held, and in our opinion rightly, that the suit was governed by Article 75 of the indian Limitation Act, because under the terms of the bond the plaintiffs could realise the entire amount of the bond only on default of payment of all the instalments and this right accrued to them when the default in payment of the 18th instalment was made on 19th June, 1940. The plaintiffs had no right to claim the entire amount earlier than the date of default of the last instalment and that in this case the provision "default in payment of all instalments" was fully covered by the expression "default of one or more instalments" used in Article 75 of the Indian limitation Act.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has contended before us that there are two default clauses in the document and under the first default clause the creditor was entitled to bring a suit for every two instalments which fell due, while under the second default clause the creditor was entitled to claim the entire amount meaning thereby all the unpaid instalments of the bond, and, consequently, the present suit by the creditor is in substance a suit to recover the unpaid instalments and that to such a case the proper article to apply was Article 74 of the Indian limitation Act and not Article 75. For this purpose reliance has been placed upon a decision of the Madras High Court in the case of V. Narayanswami v. Sri Mohan Prasad Singh Deo, AIR 1959 Madras 82. He has submitted that the third clause of the bond in suit is similar in terms to the conditions contained in Clause (f) of the bond which came up for consideration before the madras High Court. We are unable to accept this contention.

( 6 ) THE applicability of Article 74 or 75 of the Limitation Act depends upon the terms of the bond and the nature of the claim or the character of the suit brought in terms of the bond. The mere fact that a bond contains a default clause will not in all cases attract the provisions of Article 75. Article 75 applies to on