Point of la w: scheme of payment of pension in the order of priority to the members of the family is framed by the legislature keeping in mind the overall welfare of the family of deceased government servant. The said rule also provides for sanction of family pension in the order of priority to the children of the government servant suffering from disorder or disability and in deserving case, through natural guardian or legal guardian.

JUDGMENT :

The unsuccessful plaintiffs have preferred this regular second appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 25th April 2014 passed by the court of Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Madhugiri in O.S.No.344/2012, which has been confirmed by the court of Additional Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Madhugiri, in R.A.No.40/2014 by its judgment and decree dated 10.10.2014.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the appeal are referred to as per their rankings given before the trial court.

3. Brief facts of the case that would be relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are:

The plaintiffs had filed a suit in O.S.No.344/2012 before the court of Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Madhugiri (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") seeking for a declaration that the first plaintiff is the legitimate son of deceased T.N.Veerakyathaiah and he is entitled for the benefits on account of death of T.N.Veerakyathaiah along with the second plaintiff including pension amount and permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.4 from drawing the pension amount and other benefits from the other defendants ignoring the rights of plaintiffs and for a prohibitory order restraining defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 5 from making payment of any pension amount and other benefits to the fourth defendant till the disposal of the suit.

4. It is the case of the plaintiffs that late T.N.Veerakyathaiah had married the fourth defendant Puttarangamma and from the said wedlock, they have children, who are married and residing separately. The fourth defendant deserted her husband and started living separately. T.N.Veerakyathaiah there afterwards married the second plaintiff Rangamma and from the said wedlock, the first plaintiff was born. During his lifetime, T.N.Veerakyathaiah was working as a Village Accountant in the Revenue Department and after his retirement, he was drawing pension from the Karnataka State Government. T.N.Veerakyathaiah died on 30.12.2011. After his death, the fourth defendant made a claim for pension and other death benefits of late T.N.Veerakyathaiah suppressing the fact of his second marriage with the second plaintiff. It is under these circumstances, the plaintiffs had filed O.S.No.344/2012 wherein a claim was made by the first plaintiff for half share in the pension amount while remaining half was required to be shared equally by the second plaintiff and the fourth defendant.

5. After service of suit summons, the defendants had entered appearance and the fourth defendant who is the wife of late T.N.Veerakyathaiah had filed written statement denying the plaint averments. It was contended by the fourth defendant that late T.N.Veerakyathaiah had made the fourth defendant as nominee for all his benefits including the death benefits and her name is also found in the pension book of late T.N.Veerakyathaiah. The marriage between the second plaintiff and late T.N.Veerakyathaiah was denied and it was also denied that the first plaintiff was born from the said wedlock.

6. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues:

"1. Whether the plaintiff proves that 2nd T.N.Veerakyathaiah got married the 1st plaintiff about 22 years back and plaintiff is born out of their wedlock?

2. Whether plaintiffs prove that defendant no.4 is no way concerned with T.N.Veerakyathaiah, as she has deserted T.N.Veerakyathaiah during his old age and was not living with T.N.Veerakyathaiah as his wife?

3. Whether plaintiff prove that the 4th defendant suppressing the facts of plaintiff no.1 being the son of deceased

4. Whether plaintiffs prove that he is entitled for half share in the pension amount and death benefit and 2nd and 4th defendant are entitled for remaining half share?

5. Whether 4th defendant proves that she being nominated by deceased T.N.Veerakyathaiah as nominee in his service records, she alone entitled for all the benefits, in exclusion of plaintiffs? T.N.Veerakyathaiah has approached the defendants