RSA No.1245 of 2004 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.1245 of 2004 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 8 th APRIL, 2011 Rajwinder Kaur & another .... Appellants Versus Mohinder Kaur & another .... Respondents CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Vikram Chaudhari, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Sanjiv Arora, Advocate for the respondents. * * * * L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) Defendants No.1 and 2 have filed instant second appeal having lost in both the courts below. Respondent No.1-plaintiff Mohinder Kaur (since deceased and represented by legal representatives) filed suit against appellants No.1 and 2 and against State Bank of India-respondent No.2 as defendant No.3. It is undisputed that Sucha Singh since deceased was son of the plaintiff and husband and father of defendants No.1 and 2 respectively. Sucha Singh was serving in Army since the year 1985 even prior to his marriage with defendant No.1. Defendant No.2 is minor son of Sucha Singh and defendant No.1. Sucha Singh died on duty on 26.06.1993. Amount paid by Army authorities towards service benefits of Sucha Singh has been deposited in Bank account of defendant No.1. Plaintiff alleged that being mother of the deceased, she is one of his three legal heirs along with defendants No.1 and 2. Accordingly, plaintiff claimed that she is entitled to 1/3rd share in the amount of service benefits of Sucha Singh as received by defendant No.1 from the Army authorities. Plaintiff sought RSA No.1245 of 2004 -2- rendition of accounts of the said benefits and recovery of 1/3rd amount thereof. Defendants No.1 and 2 contested the suit. While not controverting the factual position, it was pleaded that defendants No.1 and 2 had been residing with Sucha Singh at his place of posting till his death. It was also pleaded that only defendant No.1 is entitled to service benefits of Sucha Singh and the same have been rightly paid to her. Plaintiff has no right to receive any share in the service benefits of Sucha Singh. It was also pleaded that share of minor defendant No.2 has already been deposited in fixed deposit. It is undisputed that defendant No.1 has remarried. It was also undisputed that amount of service benefits of Sucha Singh was received in Bank account of defendant No.1. Defendant No.3 pleaded that the Bank account in question opened in the name of defendant No.1 was being operated by her. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kapurthala vide judgment and decree dated 14.10.1998 decreed the plaintiff's suit. First appeal preferred by the defendants No.1 and 2 has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Kapurthala vide judgment and decree dated 22.12.2003. Feeling aggrieved, defendants No.1 and 2 have filed the instant second appeal. On the preceding date of hearing, it was ordered that parties shall appear in person today to make efforts for amicable settlement. Accordingly Chanan Singh husband and one of the legal representatives of respondent No.1- plaintiff Mohinder Kaur is present in person, but none of the appellants is present in person and, therefore, efforts for amicable settlement could not be made. I have heard learned counsel for the parties on merits and perused RSA No.1245 of 2004 -3- the case file. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that suit for rendition of accounts is not maintainable because plaintiff stated in her cross-examination that amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was received by defendant No.1 as the amount of service benefits of Sucha Singh, and since it was defined amount, suit for rendition of accounts would not be maintainable. The contention apparently attractive cannot be accepted. Plaintiff had no knowledge of the exact amount received by defendant No.1 towards service benefits of Sucha Singh. On the other hand, defendant No.1 in her testimony stated that she had received Rs.2,00,000/- only as amount of service benefits of Sucha Singh. Thus there is dispute regarding the actual amount received by defendant No.1. The same can be ascertained only by rendition of accounts. Plaintiff could have no knowledge of the exact amount received by defendant No.1 and it is for defendant No.1 to render accounts of the amount received by her. Learned counsel for the appellants next contended that defendant No.1 being widow is only entitled to pension of her deceased husband. Learned counsel for respondent No.1, however, submitted that respondent No.1-plaintiff does not claim the pension amount but restricts her claim to 1/3rd share in the amount of other service benefits of Sucha Singh received by defendant No.1. Consequently, the aforesaid contention does not require any further adjudication. Learned counsel for the appellants also contended that only widow- defendant No.1 is entitled to all the other service benefits as well of Sucha Singh, and plaintiff as mother of the deceased is not entitled to any share thereof. This contention cannot be accepted. Amount of service benefits of the RSA No.1245 of 2004 -4- deceased employee would constitute his estate. Plaintiff being mother of the deceased is his class-I heir and so are defendants No.1 and 2 being widow and son respectively of the deceased. Consequently, all the three of them being class-I heirs of the deceased are entitled to the amount of service benefits of the deceased to the extent of 1/3 share each. In the case of Hukmi Devi Versus State of Haryana and others (2003-2) PLR, 771, this court included the mother in the definition of family even for the purpose of pension, but it was under the Family Pension Scheme, 1964 as applicable to Haryana. However, this judgment directly may not be of any help in the instant case, but the fact remains that the plaintiff being mother of the deceased and being one of his three class-I heirs is entitled to 1/3rd share in the amount of his service benefits because the said amount constituted estate of the deceased to be inherited by his heirs as per provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. For the reasons aforesaid, I find that the plaintiff has been rightly held to be entitled to 1/3rd share in the amount of the service benefits of the deceased by the courts below. The said finding of the courts below, therefore, does not warrant interference in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for adjudication in this second appeal. The appeal is found to be devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. However, it is clarified that pension amount would not be included in the amount of which accounts are to be rendered. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 8th April, 2011 'raj'