- (1.) Present regular second appeal has been filed by the appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 01.06.1987 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, whereby judgment and decree dated 27.02.1987 passed by the learned Trial Court has been set aside. Brief facts of the case are that Tilak Raj was working as Upper Divisional Clerk in the office of Income Tax (Recovery Branch), Chandigarh. Tilak Raj died on 18.04.1986. He left behind the appellant-plaintiff (mother, namely, Smt. Attro and defendant No. 1 Kanta Rani, widow. A suit was filed by the appellant-plaintiff mother claiming half share in the General Provident Fund, Gratuity, Arrears of Salary and Group Insurance Scheme and other benefits. The learned Trial Court decreed the suit and in appeal the said judgment has been reversed. Hence, this regular second appeal.
(2.) At the time of admission, no substantial questions of law were framed. However, subsequently, following substantial questions of law have been placed on record: 1. Whether the nominee is mere trustee for legal heirs who are entitled to share the amount after death of insured 2. Whether the judgment and decree dated 09.06.2007 passed by learned Additional District Judge reversing the judgment and decree dated 27.02.1987 passed by the learned Trial Court is against well settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case Smt. Sarbati Devi and another vs. Smt. Usha Devi, 1984 AIR(SC) 346 3. Whether the learned appellate court has wrongly dismissed the suit filed by the mother of deceased claiming her share of amount against the respondent Kanta Rani widow nominee of deceased Tilak Raj 4. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the plaintiff-appellant being mother of the deceased and class-I heir is legally entitled to receive the amount due on account of Provident Fund, Gratuity, etc. to the extent of half share on account of death of her son Tilak Raj 5. Whether the nomination only indicate the hand which is authorized to receive the amount and amount can be claimed by the heir of the policy holder in accordance with the law of succession governing them
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, as well as, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 and perused the record.;