Hon’ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of original case.

2. It is admitted case between the parties that Sri Laturi Singh was son of Smt. Javitri Devi and Late Jagan Singh. Laturi Singh was employed in Border Security Force. At the time of joining service he was not married and in service record he nominated his mother Javitri Devi (defendant-appellant) as nominee of his service emoluments etc. to be earned during service period. It is also admitted that after about two years of joining of his services, Laturi Singh died on 18.2.1987.

3. After the death of Laturi Singh, Original Suit No. 236/1997 was filed by plaintiff Meera Devi, alleging herself to be wife of Laturi Singh. In beginning the sole defendant of the case was Smt. Javitri Devi, mother of the Laturi Singh. Later on Union of India and officers of Border Security Force were also impleaded as parties. In original suit it was pleaded that since plaintiff Meera Devi is wife of Laturi Singh, therefore, she is entitled for service emoluments, pension and other amenities, entitled to the wife of deceased from the employer/department. For declaration of such retiral benefits, she had filed original suit.

4. Defendant Javitri Devi (mother of Laturi Singh) contested the suit and pleaded that since she was only nominee of the deceased son Laturi Devi, therefore she is entitled for departmental amenities and emoluments after the death of Laturi Singh. She also pleaded that Meera Devi was not wife of Laturi Singh and in any case the plaintiff is not entitled for any emoluments and other retiral benefits because she was not nominee.

5. After affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties, original suit was decreed in favour of plaintiff Meera Devi. Then Civil Appeal No. 36/2009 (Smt. Javitri Devi v. Smt. Meera Devi and others) was filed by the defendant, which was heard and dismissed on 8.4.2010, by the Court of Additional District Judge, Chandausi, Moradabad.

6. Aggrieved by the judgments of trial Court as well as first appellate Court, the present appeal was preferred by the defendant No. -1 of the original suit.

7. At the time of admission of Second Appeal, following substantial questions of law were framed :

“1. Whether the amount of pension and retiral benefits can be paid only to the nominee and not to other legal heirs and representative of the deceased ? If so, it’s effect.

2. Whether the Courts below have overlooked the evidence in deciding the case between the parties ? If so, it’s effect.

8. Although, the appellant had challenged the status of respondent-plaintiff Meera Devi as wife of Laturi Singh, but the trial Court had appreciated the evidences in that regard and gave specific finding that plaintiff Meera Devi is legally wedded wife of Laturi Singh and her status is that of she is successor and legal heir of Laturi Singh. This finding of trial Court is based on oral and documentary evidences including admitted photographs etc., and is apparently not infirm or erroneous. The first appellate Court had also independently appreciated the evidences and held that plaintiff-respondent Meera Devi is legally wedded wife and legal heir of late Laturi Singh. The concurrent finding of fact on this point is apparently based on appreciation of evidences. Such concurrent and apparently acceptable findings are not perverse. Therefore, such findings should not be interfered in second appeal.

9. Admittedly the appellant-defendant Javitri Devi was nominee in service record of Laturi Singh. When he entered in service, he was unmarried. Later he married with plaintiff-respondent Meera Devi, and thereafter died. The dispute between the parties relates to entitlement of pension and retiral benefits etc. of said late Laturi Singh. In this regard the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vishin N. Khanchandani v. Vidya Lachmandas Khanchandani, (2000) 6 SCC 724, has held as under:

“The nomination only indicated the hand which was authori