1. We think the Court below are wrong in dismissing the suit altogether. It is true that the 1st plaintiff is not entitled to be paid the sum of Rs. 150 she asks for. But under the claim for further relief she is entitled to such relief as the nature of the case admits of. The lower Courts are not right in saying that the 1st plaintiff is not entitled to sue on Exhibit A. It is true she is no formal party to it. But the executants of the document have given a charge in her favour for Rs. 300 till the money is contributed by both the sons and then it ought to be invested on the security of immovable property in her favour. It is clear that she has a charge for Rs. 300 and that she is entitled to have that amount invested in her favour. The decisions of Rakhmabhai v. Govind Moreshwar 6 Bom. L.R. 421 and Hussain Begam v. Khwoja Muhammad Khan 29 A.c 151. justify an action by her on the ground that she is the beneficiary. But even apart from the relation of trustee and cestui que trust, she is a charge-holder entitled to maintain the action. She would be entitled to a decree on production of a duly executed mortgage deed by a third party compelling the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 and the 2nd plaintiff (he consents to it by his Vakil) to, pay Rs. 150 each for investment on such a mortgage. As the Courts below have dismissed the suits without trying the other issues, we reverse the decrees of the Courts below and remand the case to the District Munsif for disposal according to law. The costs of this and the lower appellate Court will be provided for in the revised decree.