Basil Scott, C.J.
1. The question is whether this suit can rightly be held to fall within the scope of Section 16(d) of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned Judge has held that it does not. The suit is one by the mother of the deceased husband of the 1st defendant 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 Section 16. The suit is for a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to a maintenance allowance of a certain amount for her life against the 1st defendant 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 the 1st defendant's land in the Inam village in the Bhimthadi Taluka of the Poona District and on her share also in the said village. The 1st defendant is sued as the person to whom the family estate has come upon death of her husband whose mother is the plaintiff Sitabai. 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, immoveable 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 Civil Procedure Code. We, therefore, think that the learned Judge was in error. We must set aside his order and direct that the suit do proceed against the 1st defendant, but we think that the Court had no jurisdiction against the second defendant. Costs, costs in the cause.