RSA No. 4548 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:11.05.2011 RSA No. 4548 of 2010 Amanpreet Kaur ...Appellant Vs. Ajaib Kaur and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the appellant. **** L.N.MITTAL, J (ORAL). This is second appeal filed by defendant No. 1-Amanpreet Kaur. Dispute relates to retiral benefits of army personnel-Gurpreet Singh who died in harness on 30.1.2002. Respondent No. 1-plaintiff-Ajaib Kaur is mother of the deceased, whereas defendant No. 1-appellant- Amanpreet Kaur is widow of the deceased. Plaintiff claimed 50% share in the retiral benefits of the deceased by filing suit. Defendant No. 1 claimed exclusive right on the said benefits. During pendency of this suit, defendants No. 2 and 4 (army authorities) sanctioned special family pension to the extent of 70% in favour of defendant No. 1-appellant and 30% in favour of respondent No. 1- plaintiff vide order dated 21.11.2002. In view thereof, both the cours below have dismissed the plaintiff's suit. Feeling aggrieved, defendant No. 1 has filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. RSA No. 4548 of 2010 -2- Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the lower appellate court has illegally held the order of the army authorities apportioning the special family pension between plaintiff and defendant No. 1 in the ratio of 30% and 70% as legal and appellant is aggrieved by the said finding. The contention is untenable. Even the trial court observed that defendant No. 1 has been rightly granted 70% of the benefits by the army authorities. The said finding of the trial court was not challenged by defendant No. 1 by filing first appeal. Consequently, by filing instant second appeal, defendant No. 1 now cannot challenge the said finding. Lower appellate court simply affirmed the finding of the trial court and dismissed the first appeal preferred by the plaintiff. In view of the aforesaid, the instant second appeal is completely misconceived and meritless. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for adjudication in the instant second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. (L.N.MITTAL) JUDGE May 11, 2011 divyanshi