JUDGMENT : AIKMAN, J.:— The first two pleas in the memorandum of appeal to this Court raise the question as to whether the Courts below were right in holding that the provisions of section 9, sub-section (3) of Local Act No. II of 1903, that is, the Bundelkhand Land Alienation Act, applies to this case. In my opinion the view taken by the Courts below is correct. It is true that the appellant, before the Act came into force, had obtained a decree for foreclosure under section 86 of the Transfer of Property Act. But he had not, when the Act came into force, obtained an order absolute for foreclosure under the provisions of section 87 of the Transfer of Property Act, although he was entitled to such an order. The case, therefore, clearly falls within the scope of the sub-section referred to above. 2. The third plea taken in the memorandum of appeal is that in any event the appellant was entitled to a simple money decree for the amount of his debt. In my opinion this plea must succeed. It is supported by the decision in second appeal No. 320 of 1904, disposed of by a Bench of this Court on the 3rd of January last[Reported at the next page.]. Following that precedent, I set aside the decrees of the Courts below, and give the appellant a simple money decree for the sum of Rs. 125, with simple interest at the stipulated rate of 18 per cent, per annum, from the date of the loan, 26th July, 1890, up to this date, and at six per cent, from this date. The appellant will have his costs here and in the courts below. The respondents are not represented here.