JUDGMENT S.K. Ghose, J. - This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council against a decision of this Court in First Appeals in a suit which was brought by the Plaintiff-Petitioner upon a mortgage bond. The claim in the suit was laid at about Rs. 46,000 and it was sought to be enforced in respect of 11 items of properties which were covered by the deed of mortgage. The trial Court decreed the suit in respect of properties corresponding to items Nos. 1 to 10 but dismissed it with regard to item No. 11 which is a residential house valued at Rs. 60,000, The other items Nos. 1 to 10 have been valued at Rs. 48,000. From that decision of the trial Court both parties appealed, Plaintiff's appeal being numbered F. A. No. 78 and Defendants' appeal being numbered F. A. No. 44. The two appeals were heard together and are covered by the judgment of this Court dated the 24th June, 1036. By that judgment Plaintiff's appeal No. 78 was dismissed and Defendants appeal No. 44 was allowed and it was directed that the entire suit be dismissed. It is now contended by the Defendants Opposite Parties that the result of the above decision was that the decree of the trial Court was affirmed with regard to item No. 11 in so far as appeal No. 78 was concerned. It is also contended that some at least findings of fact in both the Courts are concurrent and therefore leave to appeal cannot be granted unless the appeal involves some substantial questions of law. It seems to us however that, looking to the substance of the decision of this Court, namely that the entire mortgage suit has been dismissed, it must be held that the decree of this Court does not affirm the decision of the trial Court and that the decree cannot be dissected by holding that in so far as item No. 11 is concerned there is a decision of affirmance. The case of Annapurnabai v. Ruprao L. R. 51 I. A. 319: S. C. I. L. R. 51 Cal. The case of Annapurnabai v. Ruprao L. R. 51 I. A. 319: S. C. I. L. R. 51 Cal. 960 (1925) is sufficient authority for holding that the decision of this Court which is sought to be appealed from is not a decision affirming the decision of the trial Court so as to shut out the Plaintiff's right to appeal to His Majesty in Council. We hold therefore that the application for leave should be granted and there should be a certificate that as regards the amount or value and nature the case fulfils the requirements of sees. 109 and 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The application for acceptance of security for Respondents' costs in England in immovable property is rejected. McNair, J. I agree.