Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ankur Khanna And Another vs Bharat Bhushan And Others on 13 January, 2014
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
CR No.3380 of 2011 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
(212)
CR No.3380 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision:13.01.2014.
Ankur Khanna and another
......Petitioners
Versus
Bharat Bhushan and others
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. Sudhanshu Makkar, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Gulshan Sharma, Advocate for
respondent No.1.
Mr. D.D. Gupta, Addl. A.G. Haryana.
****
SABINA, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 16.12.2010 whereby the Appellate Court modified the order passed by the trial court to the effect that family pension was liable to drawn by respondent No.1.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Sham Lata Khanna had executed a Will in favour of the petitioners. Hence, respondent No.1 was not entitled to claim family Sandeep Sethi 2014.01.16 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.3380 of 2011 (O&M) -2- pension. Moreover, respondent No.1 had got remarried which disentitled him to claim family pension.
Learned counsel for respondent No.1, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that there was no material on record to establish that respondent No.1 had got remarried. Moreover, family pension was not covered under the term 'estate' and petitioners who were the major sons of Sham Lata Khanna were otherwise also not entitled to claim family pension. Only respondent No.1 was entitled to claim family pension.
Petitioners are the sons of deceased Sham Lata Khanna who was working as a JBT teacher with the State of Haryana. Sham Lata Khanna, during her lifetime, executed a Will dated 07.10.1996 and bequeathed all her estate in favour of the petitioners. Sham Lata Khanna deprived respondent No.1 from her estate. Later, probate was issued in favour of the petitioners by the trial court. Aggrieved against the judgment dated 27.11.2009 passed by the trial court, respondent No.1 preferred an appeal. The Appellate Court vide impugned order dated 16.12.2010 modified the decision passed by the trial court and also held that respondent No.1 was entitled to receive family pension. Hence, the present petition by the petitioners.
The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. Further the execution of the Will in question is also not in dispute. The question that requires consideration is only to the effect Sandeep Sethi 2014.01.16 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.3380 of 2011 (O&M) -3- as to whether respondent No.1 is entitled to receive family pension on account of death of his wife or not. It has been also held in Smt. Sudariya Bai Choudhary Vs. Union of India and others 2008(4) SCT 730 that 'family pension' would not fall within the term 'estate' and the same was not transferable and could not be bequeathed by way of Will.
Before the Appellate Court, the petitioners had moved an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for permission to lead additional evidence. By way of additional evidence, petitioners wanted to prove on record Anneuxre P-3 i.e. copy obtained from Chief Electoral Officer to establish that respondent No.1 had got remarried and was, therefore, not entitled to receive family pension, in view of the relevant rules. The learned Appellate Court rightly rejected the said application filed by the petitioners for permission to lead additional evidence, as the address given on the electoral roll was not the same as given by respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 had submitted an affidavit that he had not got remarried to Archana Khanna or any other lady.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that respondent No.1 had got remarried during the pendency of the probate petition. However, no effort was made by the petitioners to establish during the pendency of the probate petition that respondent No.1 had got remarried. In these circumstances, the learned Appellate Court rightly modified the order of the trial court and held Sandeep Sethi 2014.01.16 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.3380 of 2011 (O&M) -4- that petitioners were not entitled to received family pension on account of death of their mother.
Dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE January 13, 2014.
sandeep sethi Sandeep Sethi 2014.01.16 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document