Point of Law: Family Pension Scheme under Rules is designed to provide relief to widow and children by way of compensation for untimely death of deceased employee.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.

2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Principal District Judge, Bijapur in R.A.No.11/2011 dated 04.03.2011 thereby the judgment in O.S.No.350/2005 by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bijapur was confirmed.

3. The brief facts are as below:

The appellants are the original plaintiffs and they had filed suit for declaration and injunction against the defendant No.1 to declare that the plaintiffs' have become owners of Land in R.S.No.684/1 measuring 14 acres of Honawad village and also that they have right to receive the service benefits, insurance etc., which were bequeathed by the deceased Kalpana in favour of the plaintiffs under a Will dated 04.03.2005. They contended that the deceased Kalpana was the sister of the plaintiffs and she was working as a primary School Teacher in Athani taluk and she has married defendant No.1. They lead marital life for a period of 6 months and thereafter there was a difference among them. During the life time of deceased Kalpana, the respondent No.1 who happens to be her husband, contracted a second marriage and then he neglected the deceased Kalpana. It is contended that the deceased Kalpana died on 12.05.2005 when she was seriously ill and hearing about the ill-health, the respondent No.1 took her to Hulagabali village and after 4 days she died there. It is contended that the deceased Kalpana was suffering from illness since 2004 and she had executed a Will on 04.03.2005 bequeathing the land allotted to her, the life insurance amount and also the service benefits to the plaintiffs. The said Will was duly registered. After the death of Kalpana, the respondent No.1 tried to get his name entered in revenue records of the land and attempted to receive service benefits. The same was objected by the appellants, which gave rise to the present litigation.

4. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiffs, who are the appellants herein contended that the deceased Kalpana had executed a valid and registered Will bequeathing all her belonging and she was competent to execute the Will. They contended that the respondent / defendant was not at all entitled for any relief concerning the service benefits as well as the estate of the deceased.

5. Per contra, the defendant who happens to be the husband of the deceased Kalpana filed his written statement contending that deceased Kalpana was suffering from ill-health and also admitted that she was working as a Teacher. However, he denied that the deceased Kalpana has executed any Will in favour of the plaintiffs and it was the defendant who had taken her to the hospital and provided treatment and tried to save her. Therefore, he contended that the Will allegedly executed by deceased Kalpana is bogus invalid and suffers from various infirmities and that it was not at all executed by the deceased Kalpana. The defendant has also made a counter claim that the registered Will executed by the deceased Kalpana be declared as null and void as it is forged and created documents.

6. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Trial Court.

1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that, their sister by name Kalpana executed valid registered Will on 04.03.2005, bequeathing suit property, insurance amount and her service benefits to the plaintiffs?

2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that on 04.03.2005, deceased Kalpana was competent to execute the alleged Will favour of the plaintiffs?

3. Whether the defendant No.1 proves that alleged Will executed by Smt. Kalpana is forged one?

4. Whether the defendant No.1 proves that, he has succeeded to the Insurance amount and service benefits of Smt. Kalpana as her legal heir?

5. Whether the Court fee paid by the defendant No.1 is proper and correct?

6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the decree as sought for?

7. What order or decree?

7. The plaintiff No.3 deposed befo