04 March 2020
Supreme Court


Case number: C.A. No.-001835-001835 / 2020
Diary number: 27378 / 2017




CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).1835 OF 2020 (arising out of SLP (C) No(s). 23766 of 2017)






The appellants are aggrieved by the denial of succession

certificate under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 by

the  District  Judge,  East  District,  Gangtok,  affirmed by the  High

Court in appeal. Consequentially appellant no. 1 stands denied the

family pension which has been granted to respondent no.1 alone.   

2. The facts are undisputed. Appellant no.1 is the first wife of the

deceased  Ram Chandra Nirola. The two children  born from the

wedlock, appellant nos.2 and 3 are adults today.   The deceased,

during the subsistence of his first marriage, solemnized a second 1


marriage with respondent no.1 on 09.05.1987.  Three children were

born from this second marriage.  The deceased during his life time,

on 30.06.2008 executed a Banda Patra (settlement deed), christened

as a partition deed, by which he divided his movable and immovable

properties between the two wives before his retirement on

30.06.2009.   He expired subsequently on 13.04.2015.   The

appellants applied for a succession certificate, which was denied in

view of the settlement deed dated 30.06.2008. The appeal also

having been dismissed, the appellants are before this Court staking

their claim for family pension under the Sikkim Services (Pension)

Rules, 1990 (hereinafter called “the Pension Rules”).

3. Mr. Manish Goswami, learned counsel for the appellants,

submits that equitable distribution of the family pension between

the two wives was a statutory right of appellant no.1 under Rule

40(6) of the Pension Rules. Relying on Smt. Violet Issaac and ors.

vs. Union of India & ors., (1991) 1 SCC  725, it is submitted that

family pension was not a part of the estate of the deceased to justify

debarring the appellant no.1 by reference to the settlement deed.

Rule 38 provides for nomination with regard to the entitlement to 2


receive death­cum­retirement gratuity only, and not the receipt of

family pension.   In any event, a nomination only identifies the

recipient who then is required to share it with other legal heirs.  The

second marriage with respondent no.1 during the subsistence of the

first marriage with appellant no.1 was void in view of Rule 1 of the

Rules to  provide for registration  and  solemnization  of a form of

marriage in Sikkim vide Notification No.1520/H dated Gangtok,

03.01.1963 promulgated by His Highness the Maharaja of Sikkim

(hereinafter called “the Sikkim Rules”). These rules held the field in

Sikkim before the Hindu Marriage Act was extended to the State of

Sikkim vide SO No.950(E) dated 12.10.1988 and the Act was

enforced on 01.05.1989 vide SO No.311(E) dated 28.04.1989.

Therefore, the second marriage itself being void, respondent no.1 is

not entitled to family pension.   Alternatively, the appellant in any

event cannot be denied an equal share in the family pension.

4. Mr. Manish Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondents,

submits  that in absence of  any assertion that the marriage with

respondent no.1 was solemnised under the Sikkim Rules, the said

rules have no application in facts of the case in view of Rule 27. The



second marriage of respondent no.1 with the deceased, during the

subsistence of the  first therefore does not  stand  invalidated.  The

deceased had nominated the respondent alone under Rule 38 of the

Pension Rules for receipt of the family pension. The deceased

consciously did not nominate appellant  no.1  for  receipt of family

pension or for equal share in the same in view of the partition deed

where he equitably balanced the interest of  both his wives.  The

column for family pension contained provision for more than one

name,  but the  deceased consciously  did  not  nominate  appellant

no.1. Rule 40(6) does not vest a statutory right in appellant no.1 to

demand equal share in the family  pension.   It is conditional in

nature, only if the employee  nominates  more than one wife for

purposes of family  pension.  The deceased did not  nominate the

appellant, therefore she has no claim for family pension.  The other

appellants having become major have no claim for family pension.

Reliance was placed on Vidhyadhari & Ors. vs. Sukhrana Bai &

Ors., (2008)  2  SCC 238, in support of the submission that the

nomination in favour of the respondent to the exclusion of the

appellant was valid.



5. The respective submissions on behalf  of  the parties and the

relevant rules cited before us have been duly considered by us.

6. The deceased solemnized his second marriage with respondent

no.1 on 09.05.1987.  On that date the Hindu Marriage Act had not

been brought into force in the State of Sikkim.   Rule 27 of 1963

Rules reads as follows:

“27. Nothing contained in this Rule shall effect the

validity of any marriage not solemnized under its

provisions; nor shall this Rule be, deemed directly or

indirectly to affect the validity of any mode of

contracting marriage.”

No material has been placed by the appellants that the second

marriage was solemnized under 1963 Rules, and therefore, we have

no hesitation in holding that it does not invalidate the second

marriage of the deceased with respondent no.1.

7. The deceased was keen to ensure that in future disputes do

not arise between his two wives and their progeny.   He therefore,

executed a settlement deed on 30.06.2008 between his two wives,



both with regard to his movable and immovable properties.  It is not

the case of appellant no.1 that the settlement deed has not been

acted upon or that she has not received her due share as provided

therein. Having accepted and acted upon the deed it is not open to

the appellant no.1 to now renegade from the same.  

8.  Family pension undoubtedly is not part of  the estate of the

deceased and will be regulated by the Pension Rules which confer a

statuary right in  the beneficiary  eligible to the  same.   In  Violet

Issaac  (supra),  the family pension was sought to be paid to the

brother of the deceased by virtue of nomination to the exclusion of

the wife.  The Rules did not provide for nomination but designated

the person entitled to receive the family pension.   It has therefore

no application to the facts of the present case.


9.   Rule 35 (5) provides that for the purpose of Rules 36, 37 and

38, family in relation to a government servant means wife or wives,

including judicially separated wife.  Rule 38 provides for nomination

to be made by the government servant in Form 1 or 2 or 3

conferring on one or more persons, the right to receive death come



retirement gratuity that may be due to him.  In view of the partition

deed the  deceased  while filling  his  nomination  in the  prescribed

Form under Rule 38 mentioned the name of respondent no.1 only

as the sole beneficiary of family pension.  We are of the considered

opinion that Rule 40(6) is conditional in nature and does not vest an

automatic statutory right  in appellant no.1 to equal share  in the

family pension. The family pension would be payable to more than

one wife only if the government servant had made a nomination to

that effect and which option was open to him under the Pension


“40. Family Pension­

(6)  (a) (i)  Where the  family pension  is payable to

more widows than one, the family pension shall be

paid to the widows in equal shares….”

10. The Pension Rules therefore recognize  the nomination of  a

wife or wives for the purpose of  family pension. True, the family

pension did not constitute a part of the estate of the deceased. If the

settlement deed had not been executed and acted upon different

considerations may have arisen.  The right to family  pension  in

more than one wife being conditional in nature and not absolute, in



view of nomination in favour of respondent no.1 alone, appellant no

1 in the facts  of the  case  can also  be  said to  have  waived  her

statutory right to pension in lieu of benefits received by her under

the settlement deed. The deceased resided exclusively with

respondent no.1 and occasionally visited appellant no.1. The

deceased was exclusively taken care of by respondent no.1 during

his illness including the expenditure incurred on his treatment. In

view of the statutory rules, it is not possible to accept the argument

that respondent no.1 was nominated only for purpose of receipt of

the family pension and  per force  was required to share it equally

with appellant no.1.    

11. In Vidhyadhari  (supra), this Court accepted the claim of the

second wife to receive inter alia pension based on nomination since,

like the present case, the deceased was residing with the second

wife to the exclusion of the first.  The grant of succession certificate

to the second wife was held valid.   However, to balance equities,

this Court granted 1/5th share to the first wife in the properties.  We

may have also considered the balancing the equities if the deceased

had not executed a settlement deed with regard to his movable and



immovable properties and which was accepted and acted upon by

the appellant no.1.  

12. We, therefore, find  no  merit in the  appeal.  The  appeal is


.……………………….J.   (Ashok Bhushan)   

………………………..J.    (Navin Sinha)   

New Delhi, March 04, 2020.