Norman Macleod, C.J.
1. The question in this appeal relates to a dispute between the plaintiff, who is the widow and heir of one Narayan, and the first defendant who is the mother of Narayan. The Judge has declared that the plaintiff is the owner of the house described in the plaint, but subject to defendant No 1's right to reside in a portion of it suitable and sufficient for her residence. The plaintiff appealed on the ground that the order directing residence to be provided in the suit house for her mother-in-law was most inconvenient and prejudicial to the interest of the plaintiff. But the fact remains that this was a family house which was occupied by Narayan, and naturally his widow would be very reluctant to leave the house in which ordinarily she would have a right to reside according to Hindu law although another house belonging to Narayan might be available for her residence. It seems that the relations between the plaintiff and her mother-in-law have become somewhat unfriendly, and, therefore, while dismissing the appeal we give the plaintiff liberty to apply, so that in future if the family disagreements become so acute that it really would not be desirable that the plaintiff and her mother-in-law should be living under the same roof, it will be possible for the plaintiff to come to the Court and ask that residence should be provided elsewhere for her mother-in-law. The order is rather unusual, but it is one which is warranted by the circumstances of the case. Otherwise the plaintiff might be obliged to file a suit hereafter, and it might be argued that the matter is res judicata, and on the other hand the result of giving the plaintiff liberty to apply will necessitate a considerable amount of caution on the part of the first defendant who will feel that her residence in the suit house would depend on her living in agreement with the plaintiff, or at any rate in not providing any occasion for acute disputes arising. The appellant will pay the costs out of the estate.