Succession and Family Pension Dispute: Legal Battle Between Tulsa Devi Nirola and Radha Nirola

The case of Tulsa Devi Nirola and Others vs. Radha Nirola and Others is a significant legal dispute involving family pension and succession rights. The appellants, primarily the first wife of the deceased government servant, sought a succession certificate and a share in the family pension, which was granted exclusively to the second wife of the deceased. The Supreme Court of India had to determine whether the first wife was entitled to a share in the family pension and whether the deceased’s decision to nominate only his second wife was legally valid.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose from the death of Ram Chandra Nirola, a government servant in Sikkim. The appellants included Tulsa Devi Nirola, his first wife, and their two children. The respondent, Radha Nirola, was the second wife of the deceased, along with her three children.

The crucial aspects of the case were:

• The deceased had solemnized a second marriage with Radha Nirola on 09.05.1987, during the subsistence of his first marriage.
• The deceased had executed a settlement deed on 30.06.2008, distributing his movable and immovable properties between his two wives before his retirement on 30.06.2009.
• He expired on 13.04.2015, and the appellants applied for a succession certificate and family pension.
• The District Judge, East District, Gangtok, denied the succession certificate, and the High Court upheld this decision.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The appellants, led by their counsel Mr. Manish Goswami, made the following key arguments:

• The first wife, as a legally wedded spouse, was entitled to an equal share in the family pension as per Rule 40(6) of the Sikkim Services (Pension) Rules, 1990.
• Family pension is not part of the estate of the deceased and thus cannot be determined by a settlement deed.
• The second marriage was void under the Rules to Provide for Registration and Solemnization of a Form of Marriage in Sikkim (1963), as it was conducted before the extension of the Hindu Marriage Act to Sikkim in 1989.
• Since the second marriage was legally void, the second wife could not be considered a legitimate nominee for family pension.
• Even if the second wife was entitled to a share, the first wife could not be completely excluded from receiving family pension.

Respondent’s Arguments

The respondents, represented by Mr. Manish Pratap Singh, countered the petitioners’ claims with the following arguments:

• The second marriage was not invalidated by law, as there was no evidence that it was solemnized under the 1963 Sikkim Rules.
• The deceased had consciously nominated the second wife alone for receiving family pension under Rule 38 of the Pension Rules.
• The settlement deed executed by the deceased ensured an equitable distribution of his assets between both wives.
• Family pension is conditional, and Rule 40(6) applies only when the government servant nominates more than one wife, which was not done in this case.
• The first wife had already received her share of the deceased’s estate through the settlement deed, effectively waiving her claim to the pension.

Supreme Court’s Key Observations

The Supreme Court, after analyzing the arguments and relevant laws, made the following observations:

• The second marriage took place before the Hindu Marriage Act was extended to Sikkim. Under Rule 27 of the 1963 Sikkim Rules, marriages not solemnized under its provisions were not necessarily invalid.
• The deceased executed a settlement deed in 2008, distributing his assets, which the first wife accepted and acted upon.
• Family pension is not part of the deceased’s estate and is governed by pension rules.
• The deceased consciously nominated only the second wife for the pension, indicating his intent.
• Rule 40(6) does not grant an automatic right to family pension to multiple wives but applies only when the government servant nominates more than one wife.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the respondent, holding that:

• The second marriage was not invalidated under the 1963 Sikkim Rules.
• The first wife had accepted the settlement deed, which distributed the deceased’s estate.
• The deceased had legally nominated the second wife for the family pension.
• Since the first wife was not nominated, she had no legal claim over the family pension.

Precedents Cited

The Court referred to the following judgments to support its decision:

• Violet Issaac vs. Union of India (1991) 1 SCC 725: Held that family pension is not part of the deceased’s estate.
• Vidyadhari vs. Sukhrana Bai (2008) 2 SCC 238: Recognized the nomination of the second wife for pension and upheld her right to receive it.

Impact of the Judgment

This judgment clarifies the legal position regarding family pensions in cases of multiple marriages. It establishes that:

• Family pension is governed by nomination rules and is not an automatic right of a legal heir.
• Once a nominee is designated, they have exclusive rights unless otherwise stated.
• A legally valid settlement deed can effectively determine inheritance rights among family members.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case reinforces the importance of clear legal documentation in inheritance and pension matters. The ruling demonstrates that a settlement deed and a clear nomination under pension rules hold significant weight in legal disputes over succession.

Petitioner Name: Tulsa Devi Nirola and Others.
Respondent Name: Radha Nirola and Others.
Judgment By: Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice Navin Sinha.
Place Of Incident: Sikkim.
Judgment Date: 04-03-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Tulsa Devi Nirola an vs Radha Nirola and Oth Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 04-03-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Succession and Wills
See all petitions in Damages and Compensation
See all petitions in Contract Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by Ashok Bhushan
See all petitions in Judgment by Navin Sinha
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments March 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category