Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Premvati vs Water Supply Electric Sub Division on 2 August, 2024
Author: Roopesh Chandra Varshney
Bench: Roopesh Chandra Varshney
1 SA-292-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY
ON THE 2 nd OF AUGUST, 2024
SECOND APPEAL No. 292 of 2014
SMT. PREMVATI AND OTHERS
Versus
WATER SUPPLY ELECTRIC SUB DIVISION AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Vivek Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No. 4.
None for other respondents.
ORDER
This appeal under Section 100 of CPC is directed by
appellants/plaintiffs against the concurring judgment and decree dated
16/5/2014 passed by First Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Appeal
No. 23-A/2013 confirming the judgment and decree dated 22/2/2013 passed
by First Additional Judge to the Court of First Civil Judge, Class I,
Gwalior in Civil Suit No.28-A/2012. The suit filed by appellants/plaintiffs
for declaration that the appellants are entitled to get the pension on death of
deceased RAnveer Tomar being his nominee and also on the basis of Will
dated 25/11/2009, got dismissed.
2. Facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are to the effect that as
per plaint allegations appellant No. 1 claimed that she is legally wedded wife
of deceased Ranveer Singh as their marriage was performed as per Hindu
Rites and Rituals at Resham Mill, Birla Nagar on 21/6/1966. Respondent No.
2 SA-292-2014
4 after marriage only stayed with Ranveer Singh for few days and thereafter
left the house. Appellant No. 1 was residing with deceased for near about 50
years and during this period there was no relationship between deceased and
respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 4 is still alive, appellant came to know
after 33 years. There is a police report dated 11/4/1963 lodged by deceased
according to which respondent No. 4 was missing for 10 years on the date of
lodging of report, therefore, since she is legally wedded wife of deceased,
she is entitled to recieve his pension as per nomination in service book and
also as per the Will executed by the deceased.
3. Respondent No. 4/ contesting defendant filed reply and stated that
since there was no divorce between her and deceased Ranveer and as she is
alive, even if Ranveer Singh married second time then also second wife has
no rights.
4. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, trial Court framed as many as five
issues and allowed parties to lead evidence. Trial Court upon detailed
examination of evidence on record, dismissed the suit.
5. On appeal, the first appellate Court, while deciding the appeal again
re-appreciated the evidence brought before it and found that appellants failed
to prove their case beyond reasonable doubts and therefore, the trial Court
did not err in passing the impugned judgment and decree, and thus, after re
appreciation of evidence, upheld the judgment of trial Court and dismissed
the appeal.
6. After having perused the judgments of both the Courts below, this
Court is of the considered view that the entire gamut of matter is in the realm
3 SA-292-2014
of facts. The findings recorded by both the Courts below are pure findings of
facts which in the opinion of this Court do not warrant any interference
under Section 100 of CPC. No question of law, much less substantial
question of law arises in this appeal, admission declined and appeal is
dismissed.
(ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY)
JUDGE
JPS/-
