Scott, C.J:— The question is whether this suit can rightly be held to fall within the scope of Section 16(d) of the CPC. The learned Judge has held that it does not. The suit one by the mother of the deceased husband of defendant 1 against that defendant and her father. Both the defendants live in a Native State, and, therefore, in respect of personal claims they will not be liable to the jurisdiction of the Court unless the suit falls within S. 16. The suit is for a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to a maintenance allowance of a certain amount for her life against defendant 1 and for residence and pilgrimage expenses and other claims and also for stridhan property, and one of the objects of the suit, which is set out in the prayer, is that the liability to pay the sums claimed should be made a charge on defendant 1's land in the land village in the Bhimthadi Taluka of the Poona District, and on her share also in the said village. Defendant 1 is sued as the person to whom the family estate has come upon death of her husband, whose mother is the plaintiff Sitabai.
2. On the plaint as framed, the question which has to be decided before the Court will be enabled to pass a decree, is whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to a right to or interest in, immovable property in the Bhimthadi taluka, by way of charge as security for the maintenance which may be decreed. That being the question to be determined, it is a question directly within the terms of Section 16(d) of the CPC. We therefore think that the learned Judge was in error. We must set aside his order and direct that the suit do proceed against defendant 1 but we think that the Court had no jurisdiction against defendant 2. Costs, costs in the cause.
G.P/R.K
3. Order set aside.