Civil Rev. 2895 of 2009 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH Civil Rev. 2895 of 2009 Date of decision: 25.8.2009 Gurmail Singh Petitioner vs Amar Kaur and another Respondent Present Mr. Rajan Bansal, Advocate Smt. Amar Kaur, respondent in person M.M.S.BEDI,J. The petitioner is brother of Sarabjit Kaur, widow of Jagjit Singh. Respondent No.1 Amar Kaur is the widowed mother of Jagjit Singh. The petitioner has filed this revision petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by order dated 1.9.2006 passed by the learned Additioinal Civil Judge (Sr.D.), Barnala dismissing the application for issuance of succession certificate filed by Sarabjit Kaur and the order dated 9.3.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Barnala dismissing the appeal. The brief facts of the case are that Jagjit Singh, an employee of the Punjab Police posted as a Constable, married to Sarabjit Kaur, died on 12.5.2000. An application for issuance of succession certificate was filed by Sarabjit Kaur, sister of the petitioner for getting succession certificate qua debts and securities. The GPF and gratuity etc. were also claimed. The mother of Jagjit Singh, respondent No.1 contested the Civil Rev. 2895 of 2009 2 application on the ground that on 9.5.2000 deceased Jagjit Singh had executed a Will regarding the moveable and immovable properties in her name. The said Will was scribed by Harpreet Singh Sidhu, Advocate and attested by Lambardar Ranjit Singh and Balvir Singh, which was duly registered. It was pleaded that the wife of deceased Jagjit Singh remained with him only for two days. Jagjit Singh fell ill and executed a Will dated 9.5.2000 in favour of respondent No.1 Amar Kaur. During the pendency of the proceedings, Sarabjit Kaur also expired. Petitioner Gurmail Singh, her brother, on the basis of a Will dated 24.12.2001 executed by Sarabjit Kaur in his favour, continued with the proceedings and pursued the case for getting the succession certificate. The trial court dismissed the application of Gurmail Singh to obtain succession certificate on the basis of the Will Ex.A1.However, respondent Amar Kaur, being the mother of deceased Jagjit Singh, was held entitled to the service benefits in the form of GPF. Gratuity, leave encashment and group insurance etc. subject to furnishing of an indemnity bond in the sum of Rs.4 lacs with one surety in the like amount to indemnify the better claimant, if any, in future. The said order was upheld by the lower appellate court. The petitioner claims that in view of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act ( for short 'the Act') , his sister having executed a Will, bequeathing her interest in his favour, he would be entitled to inherit the property of Sarabjit Kaur, including the service benefits of deceased Jagjit Singh, which were due to be released to Sarabjit Kaur. The lower appellate court considered the said contentions in detail and dismissed the appeal. The operative part of the judgment reads as follows:- Civil Rev. 2895 of 2009 3 “ The perusal of the aforesaid provisions makes it amply clear that Section 15(1) of the Act comes into play in the event female Hindu had died intestate. In the case in hand, the succession has to be governed by Section 15(2) and it is immaterial as to whether the female Hindu had died intestate or not. Even, on the assumption that the deceased applicant was exclusively entitled to the service benefits of the deceased, the said property after her death, which has been inherited from her husband has to devolve upon the heirs of the husband, particularly because the deceased applicant had not left any son or daughter. Furthermore, the respondent No.2 has also examined the scribe and an attesting witness to the Will, copy whereof is Ex. R1 to indicate that Jagjit Singh deceased had made a bequest in her favour. In these circumstances, no illegality or irregularity is made out in the judgment of the learned lower court. The findings of the learned lower court on all the issues are affirmed.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the provisions of Section 15 (2) of the Act would only become applicable when the Hindu female died intestate. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on Jayasri Guha Nee Gosh v Smt. Shukla Ghosh and Anr AIR 2008 Calcutta 179. He has also argued that deceased Jagjit Singh could not bequeath his family pension in favour of his parents as it does not form part of his estate. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on Jyotiben Natvarlal Bhatt v State of Gujarat 1999(1) SCT 467. Civil Rev. 2895 of 2009 4 I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the judgment of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr.D) Barnala indicates that respondent Amar Kaur has been held entitled to the service benefits i.e. GPF, leave encashment, gratuity and the group insurance etc. So far as the pension is concerned, after the death of his wife Sarabjit Kaur, the pension benefits cannot be given to the brother of Sarabjit Kaur on the basis of the Will put forth by him. The Courts below have held that deceased Jagjit Singh had executed a Will Ex. R1 in favour of respondent Amar Kaur and on the basis of the said Will, respondent Amar Kaur, being the mother of deceased Jagjit Singh, is entitled to the issuance of succession certificate. In view of the Will executed by Jagjit Singh Ex.R1 in favour of Amar Kaur respondent, the subsequent Will alleged to have been executed by Sarabjit Kaur in favour of petitioner Gurmail Singh, will be of no consequence and will not confer any rights upon him and cannot supersede the interests of respondent Amar Kaur, acquired by her on the basis of the Will. The ratio of the rulings, cited by the counsel for the petitioner, are not applicable to the facts of the present case. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. August 25 ,2009 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE