DEEP SIKHA AGA Vs. RANI AGA AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a first appeal arising out of the judgment and decree dated 23rd of December, 1975, passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Allahabad. One Sri A.K. Aga was employed in the Indian Air Force, and held the rank of a Flying Officer. The appellant is the widow of the said Sri A.K. Aga, while plaintiff respondent no. 1 and defendant respondent no. 4 are his mother and father respectively. On 3rd of February, 1973, the plane in which Sri A.K. Aga had taken off from Jorhat Air Field was reported missing and on 7th July, 1973, it was declared that Sri Aga died after the wreckage of the plane was found. The appellant then laid a claim to the various pensionary and other awards in her capacity as the widow of Sri A.K. Aga. The claim made by the appellant was in the first instance not accepted by the Army Authorities, but later through their letter dated 15th November, 1973, the Air Headquarter decided to recognise the appellant as the next of kin of the deceased, Sri A.K. Aga. Since this could entitle the appellant to receive all pensionary and other awards arising out of the death of Sri A.K. Aga, Smt. Rani Aga, respondent no. 1, filed a suit in the court of the Additional Civil Judge, Allahabad for issue of a permanent injunction restraining the Union of India and the Chief of Air Staff, respondent nos. 2 and 3, from paying or delivering any discretionary benefits, arising out of the death of Sri Aga, to the appellant and further for a declaration that she was entitled to all the discretionary benefits, award, special pensions, etc. The suit was resisted by the appellant inter alia on the ground that, in her capacity as the widow of Sri A.K. Aga, she was entitled to get all discretionary and other benefits arising out of the death of Sri Aga and further that, since the respondent no. 4, the husband of the plaintiff-respondent, runs a restaurant and bar which is a profitable venture, she is, fully capable of supporting her and is consequently not entitled to get any discretionary benefit. The suit was also resisted by the Union of India and the ground of defence set up by them mainly was that the plaintiff-respondent had not established any circumstance entitling her to the payment of the family pension in the presence of a widow. The trial court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the relief's claimed by the plaintiff are governed by the law of inheritance of Hindu law or by the Pensions Regulations for the Air Force of 1961 and as amended from time to time.

(2.) WHETHER the plaintiff has a superior right than that of the defendant no. 3 to receive the various payments from defendant nos. 1 and 2.

(3.) WHETHER the suit is not maintainable ?