Regular Second Appeal No.300 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.300 of 2008 Date of decision: 14.07.2009 Madan Lal s/o Balak Ram resident of Gali Jhulna Mehal, H. No. 245, Ward No. 17, Gurdaspur. ..... Appellant. Versus 1.Punjab State through Collector, Gurdaspur, 2.District Education Officer (Primary)Gurdaspur, 3.Block Education Officer (Primary), Block Taragarh, Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur, 4.Head Teacher Govt. Primary School, Bamial, Block Taragarh, Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur, 5.DPO(s) Punjab, Sector 17, Chandigarh, 6.Saroj Bala widow of Mohinder Kumar son of Madan Lal, r/o village Jhulna Mehal, Gurdaspur, at present d/o Gopal Dass, r/o Rakhmalwan, P.O. Narot Jaimal Singh, Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur, 7.Sahil minor son of Mohinder Kumar r/o village Jhulna Mehal, Gurdaspur through his mother Saroj Bala as his next friend and guardian. ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present:-Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the appellant. None on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Mr. Parveen Kumar, Advocate for respondent nos. 6 and 7. Regular Second Appeal No.300 of 2008 2 Sham Sunder, J. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 08.12.2003, rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurdaspur, vide which it dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, for declaration, and the judgment and decree dated 02.12.2006, rendered by the Court of District Judge, Gurdaspur, vide which the appeal was dismissed against the judgment and decree of the trial Court. 2. Mohinder Kumar, was serving as a teacher in Government Primary School, Bamial. He expired on 12.09.2000. The plaintiff, being the father of Mohinder Kumar, deceased, claimed his pensionary benefits, on the basis of Will dated 08.09.2000, having been executed, in his favour, and defendant no.7 his grandson. It was stated that the plaintiff and defendant no.7 were asked to admit the claim of the plaintiff, on the basis of Will, but to no avail. Ultimately a suit for declaration was filed. 3. Defendant nos. 1 to 5, put in appearance, and contested the suit, by way of Regular Second Appeal No.300 of 2008 3 filing their joint written statement. They pleaded that the suit was liable to be dismissed for want of service of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff had no locus standi and cause of action to file the suit. It was further pleaded that the suit was not maintainable. It was stated that Mohinder Kumar was serving as a Teacher, and died on 12.09.2000. It was further stated that defendant no.6, who is the widow of Mohinder Kumar, used to serve him. He nominated defendant no.6 as his nominee in service record. It was further stated that Mohinder Kumar, did not execute any Will dated 08.09.2000. The plaintiff had filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against Mohinder Kumar, during his life time, and there was a news, at his instance disowning Mohinder Kumar. It was further stated that the Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur, issued dependent certificate, in favour of the widow and minor son of Mohinder Kumar, and service benefits were given to them. 4. Defendant nos. 6 and 7, also contested the suit by way of filing their separate joint Regular Second Appeal No.300 of 2008 4 written statement, wherein, it was pleaded that the suit was not maintainable; and that the plaintiff had no locus standi and cause of action to file the suit. It was stated that Mohinder Kumar was not having cordial relations with the plaintiff. It was denied that any Will was executed by Mohinder Kumar, in favour of Madan Lal, plaintiff (now appellant ). 5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1- Whether the suit is not maintainable?OPD 2- Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 3- Whether the plaintiff has not come to Court with clean hands ?OPD 4- Whether the plaintiff and defendant no.7 are entitled to declaration as prayed for ?OPP 5- Relief.” 6. The parties led evidence in support of their case. The trial Court after hearing the Counsel for the parties, and on going through the evidence and record of the case, came to the conclusion that defendant nos. 6 and 7, being the Regular Second Appeal No.300 of 2008 5 widow and minor son of the deceased, were entitled to the pensionary benefits. It was further held that the execution of Will was not proved. Ultimately, the suit was dismissed. 7. Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment and decree dated 08.12.2003, rendered by the trial Court, the appellant filed an appeal before the Appellate Court at Gurdaspur, which vide its judgment and decree dated 02.12.2006 dismissed the same. 8. Still feeling dis-satisfied, the instant Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant. 9. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through and perused the documents, on record, carefully. 10. The Counsel for the appellant, could not point out, any illegality or infirmity, in the judgments of the Courts below. He admitted that Madan Lal, plaintiff (now appellant ) is the father of Mohinder Kumar, deceased, whereas respondent nos. 6 and 7 are his widow and minor son respectively. He further submitted that the appellant, being an old man, deserved to be paid Regular Second Appeal No.300 of 2008 6 something, out of the pensionary benefits of Mohinder Kumar, deceased, but the Courts below were wrong in denying the same. 10. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents submitted that, as per the Rules, the widow and the minor son of Mohinder Kumar were entitled to the pensionary benefits, and even the dependent certificate was issued, in their favour, by the Deputy Commissioner. He further submitted that the pensionary benefits were paid to them. He further submitted that even the execution of the alleged Will, in favour of Madan Lal, plaintiff (now appellant), was not proved. He further submitted that the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, being correct, are liable to be up- held. 11. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. Admittedly, Mohinder Kumar, who expired on 12.09.2000, was a Government employee. The appellant is the father of Mohinder Kumar, deceased. The execution of the Regular Second Appeal No.300 of 2008 7 Will, which was set up by the appellant, purported to have been executed, in his favour,by Mohinder Kumar, was not proved. Even, as per the relevant Rules, governing the subject matter, the widow and the minor son of the deceased, were entitled to the pensionary benefits, after the death of Mohinder Kumar. A certificate, that both of them were dependent upon Mohinder Kumar, was also issued by the Deputy Commissioner. In this view of the matter, the concerned department was right in releasing the pensionary benefits, in favour of defendant nos. 6 and 7. The concurrent findings of fact, recorded by the Courts below, that Saroj Bala, defendant no.6, being the widow and Sahil, being the minor son of Mohinder Singh, deceased, were entitled to the pensionary benefits of Mohinder Kumar, deceased, and that the appellant was not entitled to the same, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law on the point, warrant no interference. The judgments and decrees, of the Courts below, are liable to be upheld. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail and the same stands rejected. Regular Second Appeal No.300 of 2008 8 12. No question of law, much less substantial, arises in this appeal, for the determination of this Court. 13. In view of the above, finding no merit in the appeal, the same stands dismissed with costs. ( Sham Sunder ) July 14, 2009 Judge dinesh