Judgment

Anil R. Dave, J.

1. Being aggrieved by the judgment delivered in Regular Second Appeal No. 959 of 2001 and CM No. 4711-C of 2002 and Cross Objection No. 17-C of 2001, dated 21st September, 2005, by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, this appeal has been filed by the original Defendants.

2. Facts leading to the present litigation in a nutshell are as under:

Late Shri Atam Parkash had married to Smt. Raj Kumari on 20th September, 1961 as per Hindu rites and customs and by that marriage, they had a daughter named Ms. Nishoo @ Meeshu. During the subsistence of the afore-stated marriage, late Shri Atam Parkash also married to Smt. Krishna on 16th June, 1970 at Arya Samaj, Anarkali, Mandir Marg, New Delhi, and by the second marriage they had a daughter named Payal.

3. During his life time, late Shri Atam Parkash had executed a Registered Will on 9th April, 1982 and by virtue of which he had bequeathed his movable and immovable properties in favour of Smt. Krishna and his daughter Payal.

4. Upon death of Shri Atam Parkash, his second wife Krishna and his daughter Payal had filed Civil Suit No. 322 of 1996 in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sonepat (Haryana) for a declaration to the effect that they were the only heirs of late Shri Atam Prakash and therefore, they were entitled to all the properties of late Shri Atam Parkash. In the said Suit, Smt. Raj Kumari, the first wife of late Shri Atam Parkash and his daughter, Nishu, were Defendants. The Trial Court came to the conclusion that in pursuance of the Will executed by late Shri Atam Parkash, movable and immovable properties mentioned in the Will were to be inherited by the Plaintiffs and so far as other properties, which were not specifically mentioned in the Will, including pension and other retirement benefits, which would arise upon death of late Shri Atam Parkash, should be given to all the legal heirs, i.e., the Defendants, namely, (i) Smt. Shanti Devi, mother of the deceased, (ii) Smt. Raj Kumari, his first wife and (iii) Nishoo, his daughter and (iv) his daughter Payal, Plaintiff No. 2, in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act.

5. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, three appeals had been filed before the Additional District Judge, Sonepat, and all the appeals were dismissed.

6. The present Respondents, namely, the original Plaintiffs, had filed Regular Second Appeal No. 959 of 2001 before the High Court and the High Court was pleased to allow the said appeal. By virtue of the impugned judgment, the High Court has held that all the properties including the benefits in the nature of pension, etc., should be given to the Plaintiffs and therefore, this appeal has been filed by the original Defendants challenging the validity of the said judgment.

7. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants, who has submitted that the High Court has committed a grave error by allowing the appeal without framing a substantial question of law.

8. It has been further submitted by him that there were three shops belonging to late Shri Atam Parkash as on 9th April, 1982 and the said shops had not been referred to in the afore-stated Will. The said shops ought to have been treated as having been inherited by the present Appellants, i.e., the first wife and daughter Nishoo.

9. It has been further submitted that the Will which had been executed on 9th April, 1982, is not a valid Will and therefore, all the courts below were in error by declaring that the Plaintiffs were rightful heirs of late Shri Atam Parkash.

10. Lastly, it has been submitted by him that late Shri Atam Parkash was an employee of Haryana State Electricity Board and as per rules & Regulations pertaining to service conditions of its employees, pension and other retirement benefits ought to have been given to the present Appellants, i.e., Smt. Raj Kumari, the first wife and Nishoo, the daughter of the deceased.

11. The Respondents ha