<p>The Kalaburagi bench of the high court has said that the family pension does not form part of the estate of the deceased and as such it cannot be disposed of during life time by testamentary disposition (through will).</p>.<p>Justice C M Joshi said this while dismissing the claim of three siblings of a deceased primary school teacher.</p>.<p>The appeal was filed by Sujatha, Vidyavati and their younger brother Santhosh, all siblings of Kalpana, who worked as a primary school teacher in Athani taluk. It was stated that Kalpana’s marriage with Nehru alias Kamagond Patil had lasted only for six months. It was claimed that Patil had contracted a second marriage and ignored Kalpana.</p>.<p>After Kalpana’s death in May 2005, the siblings filed a suit for declaration and injunction against Kamagond Patil to declare that the siblings have become owners of 14 acres of land in Honawad village. It was also claimed that they have the right to receive the service benefits, including pension benefits, bequeathed by Kalpana in their favour<br />under a will dated March 4, 2005.</p>.<p>The Additional Civil Judge in Vijayapura and the Principal District Judge, Vijayapura dismissed the claim of the siblings over service benefits. It was held that though the will was proved by the siblings, Kalpana could not have bequeathed the service benefits to them.</p>.<p>The court, however, decreed the suit in part and held that one of the siblings is owner of the land and that he was entitled to receive the proceeds of the LIC policies.</p>.<p>In the appeal before the high court, the siblings contended that the wish of the deceased is of paramount importance and at no stretch of imagination the provisions of Rule 302 of Karnataka Civil Services Rules (KCSR) can override the last wish of the deceased.</p>.<p>Justice C M Joshi noted that in the Jodh Singh Vs Union of India case, the apex court has clearly held that the family pension does not form part of the estate of the deceased and no other persons except those designated under the rules, are entitled to receive the family pension.</p>.<p>“…it is clear that the service benefits do not form the bequeathable estate of any government servant. Under these circumstances, the judgments of the trial court as well the first appellate Court cannot be found fault with,” the bench said.</p>
<p>The Kalaburagi bench of the high court has said that the family pension does not form part of the estate of the deceased and as such it cannot be disposed of during life time by testamentary disposition (through will).</p>.<p>Justice C M Joshi said this while dismissing the claim of three siblings of a deceased primary school teacher.</p>.<p>The appeal was filed by Sujatha, Vidyavati and their younger brother Santhosh, all siblings of Kalpana, who worked as a primary school teacher in Athani taluk. It was stated that Kalpana’s marriage with Nehru alias Kamagond Patil had lasted only for six months. It was claimed that Patil had contracted a second marriage and ignored Kalpana.</p>.<p>After Kalpana’s death in May 2005, the siblings filed a suit for declaration and injunction against Kamagond Patil to declare that the siblings have become owners of 14 acres of land in Honawad village. It was also claimed that they have the right to receive the service benefits, including pension benefits, bequeathed by Kalpana in their favour<br />under a will dated March 4, 2005.</p>.<p>The Additional Civil Judge in Vijayapura and the Principal District Judge, Vijayapura dismissed the claim of the siblings over service benefits. It was held that though the will was proved by the siblings, Kalpana could not have bequeathed the service benefits to them.</p>.<p>The court, however, decreed the suit in part and held that one of the siblings is owner of the land and that he was entitled to receive the proceeds of the LIC policies.</p>.<p>In the appeal before the high court, the siblings contended that the wish of the deceased is of paramount importance and at no stretch of imagination the provisions of Rule 302 of Karnataka Civil Services Rules (KCSR) can override the last wish of the deceased.</p>.<p>Justice C M Joshi noted that in the Jodh Singh Vs Union of India case, the apex court has clearly held that the family pension does not form part of the estate of the deceased and no other persons except those designated under the rules, are entitled to receive the family pension.</p>.<p>“…it is clear that the service benefits do not form the bequeathable estate of any government servant. Under these circumstances, the judgments of the trial court as well the first appellate Court cannot be found fault with,” the bench said.</p>