RAJ KUMARI Vs KRISHNA .
Bench: ANIL R. DAVE,R.K. AGRAWAL,R. BANUMATHI
Case number: C.A. No.-001811-001811 / 2007
Diary number: 9437 / 2006
Advocates: ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE Vs
BHASKAR Y. KULKARNI
Page 1
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1811 OF 2007
RAJ KUMARI & ANR. ... APPELLANT(s) VS.
KRISHNA & ORS. ... RESPONDENT(s)
J U D G M E N T
ANIL R. DAVE, J.
1. Being aggrieved by the judgment delivered in Regular
Second Appeal No.959 of 2001 and CM No.4711-C of 2002 and
Cross Objection No.17-C of 2001, dated 21st September, 2005,
by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, this
appeal has been filed by the original defendants.
2. Facts leading to the present litigation in a nutshell
are as under :
Late Shri Atam Parkash had married to Smt. Raj Kumari
on 20th September, 1961 as per Hindu rites and customs and
by that marriage, they had a daughter named Ms. Nishoo @
Meeshu. During the subsistence of the afore-stated
marriage, late Shri Atam Parkash also married to Smt.
Krishna on 16th June, 1970 at Arya Samaj, Anarkali, Mandir
1
Page 2
Marg, New Delhi, and by the second marriage they had a
daughter named Payal.
3. During his life time, late Shri Atam Parkash had
executed a Registered Will on 9th April, 1982 and by virtue
of which he had bequeathed his movable and immovable
properties in favour of Smt. Krishna and his daughter
Payal.
4. Upon death of Shri Atam Parkash, his second wife
Krishna and his daughter Payal had filed Civil Suit No.322
of 1996 in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Junior
Division, Sonepat (Haryana) for a declaration to the effect
that they were the only heirs of late Shri Atam Prakash and
therefore, they were entitled to all the properties of late
Shri Atam Parkash. In the said Suit, Smt. Raj Kumari, the
first wife of late Shri Atam Parkash and his daughter,
Nishu, were defendants. The Trial Court came to the
conclusion that in pursuance of the Will executed by late
Shri Atam Parkash, movable and immovable properties
mentioned in the Will were to be inherited by the
plaintiffs and so far as other properties, which were not
specifically mentioned in the Will, including pension and
other retirement benefits, which would arise upon death of
late Shri Atam Parkash, should be given to all the legal
heirs, i.e., the defendants, namely, (i) Smt. Shanti Devi,
mother of the deceased, (ii) Smt. Raj Kumari, his first
2
Page 3
wife and (iii) Nishoo, his daughter and (iv) his daughter
Payal, Plaintiff No.2, in accordance with the provisions of
the Hindu Succession Act.
5. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by
the trial court, three appeals had been filed before the
Additional District Judge, Sonepat, and all the appeals
were dismissed.
6. The present respondents, namely, the original
plaintiffs, had filed Regular Second Appeal No.959 of 2001
before the High Court and the High Court was pleased to
allow the said appeal. By virtue of the impugned judgment,
the High Court has held that all the properties including
the benefits in the nature of pension, etc., should be
given to the plaintiffs and therefore, this appeal has been
filed by the original defendants challenging the validity
of the said judgment.
7. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants, who has submitted that the High Court has
committed a grave error by allowing the appeal without
framing a substantial question of law.
8. It has been further submitted by him that there were
three shops belonging to late Shri Atam Parkash as on 9th
April, 1982 and the said shops had not been referred to in
the afore-stated Will. The said shops ought to have been
3
Page 4
treated as having been inherited by the present appellants,
i.e., the first wife and daughter Nishoo.
9. It has been further submitted that the Will which had
been executed on 9th April, 1982, is not a valid Will and
therefore, all the courts below were in error by declaring
that the plaintiffs were rightful heirs of late Shri Atam
Parkash.
10. Lastly, it has been submitted by him that late Shri
Atam Parkash was an employee of Haryana State Electricity
Board and as per rules & regulations pertaining to service
conditions of its employees, pension and other retirement
benefits ought to have been given to the present
appellants, i.e., Smt. Raj Kumari, the first wife and
Nishoo, the daughter of the deceased.
11. The respondents have been duly served and Mr. Bhaskar
Y. Kulkarni, has filed Vakalatnama for the respondents.
Today, Mr. Vikas Mahajan, learned counsel, who has appeared
for Mr. Bhaskar Y. Kulkarni, has submitted that he has no
instructions, especially in view of the fact that Shri
Kulkarni had given “No Objection Certificate” to another
Advocate, whose name he does not remember. However, he has
made efforts to assist the Court. He has submitted that
the impugned judgment delivered by the High Court is just
and proper because, according to him, when a Will had been
executed in favour of the original plaintiffs/respondents
4
Page 5
herein, pension and other retirement benefits, which had
arisen by virtue of service rendered by late Shri Atam
Parkash to the Haryana State Electricity Board should also
be given to the respondents. He has further submitted that
the Will was genuine and as it had been proved before the
Trial Court, this Court normally should not look into the
question with regard to validity of the Will, especially
when execution of a Will is a question of fact.
12. The learned counsel has thus submitted that the
impugned judgment is just and proper and this Court should
dismiss the appeal.
13. Upon hearing the leaned counsel and going through the
relevant record, in our opinion, the High Court has
committed an error by coming to a conclusion that even
pension and other benefits, which late Shri Atam Parkash
would have got upon his retirement, should be given to Smt.
Krishna and Payal.
14. Normally, pension is given to the legally wedded wife
of a deceased employee. By no stretch of imagination one
can say that the plaintiff, Smt. Krishna was the legally
wedded wife of late Shri Atam Parkash, especially when he
had a wife, who was alive when he married to another woman
in Arya Samaj temple, as submitted by the learned counsel
appearing for the appellants. We are, therefore, of the
view that the High Court should not have modified the
5
Page 6
findings arrived at and the decree passed by the trial
court in relation to the pensionery benefits. The
pensionery benefits shall be given by the employer of late
Shri Atam Parkash to the present appellants in accordance
with the rules and regulations governing service conditions
of late Shri Atam Prakash.
15. So far as the submissions with regard to three shops
are concerned, we are of the view that the said submissions
cannot be accepted. It is an admitted fact that the said
three shops had been constructed in a premises which has
been bequeathed by late Shri Atam Parkash to the
plaintiffs/respondents. The details of the said house had
been given in the Will which had been executed on 9th April,
1982. The said shops are part of House No.6-A, Khanna
Colony, Sonepat. If the said house has been clearly
described in the Will and it has been bequeathed to the
plaintiffs, we see no reason to say that the findings of
the trial court are incorrect. It is also pertinent to
note that by virtue of the Will executed by late Shri Atam
Parkash all immovable properties belonging to the deceased
have been bequeathed to the plaintiffs. In such a case,
the immovable properties, which have been described in the
said Will, would invariably be inherited by the plaintiffs.
Therefore, we decline to accept the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the appellants that the said three
shops should be inherited by the present appellants.
6
Page 7
16. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we set aside the
impugned judgment delivered by the High Court and restore
the decree passed by the trial court, which had been
confirmed by the Appellate Court. The appeal stands
disposed of as allowed with no order as to costs.
..............J. [ANIL R. DAVE]
..............J. [R.K. AGRWAL]
..............J. [R. BANUMATHI]
New Delhi; 26th February, 2015.
7