CR-6162-2025 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-6162-2025 (O&M) Krishna Devi ...Pe''oner Versus Sweety and others ...Respondents Reserved on: 27.04.2026 Pronounced on: 29.04.2026 Pronounced fully/opera've part: Fully CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by: Mr. Ashutosh Gupta, Advocate for the pe**oner. Mr. Anuj Gupta, Advocate for the respondents. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. The pe**oner, who is the mother of deceased Swaraj Hooda, has approached this Court by way of the present revision pe**on challenging the concurrent judgments passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rohtak dated 13.02.2020, and affirmed by the learned Addi*onal District Judge, Rohtak vide judgment dated 28.02.2025, whereby the pe**on filed by respondent No.1–Sweety (widow) and respondent No.2–Yash (minor son) under Sec*on 372 of the Indian Succession Act has been allowed and the succession cer*ficate in respect of the service and re*ral benefits of the deceased has been ordered to be issued in their favour. 2. The factual backdrop, in brief, is that Swaraj Hooda, who was serving under the Haryana State Agricultural Marke*ng Board, died on 31.10.2015. It is not in dispute that he was suffering from a brain tumor and had remained under treatment for a considerable period prior to his death. The respondents herein, being his widow and minor son, ins*tuted a pe**on seeking succession cer*ficate in respect of arrears of salary, GPF, insurance YOGESH MEHTA 2026.04.29 15:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6162-2025 (O&M) [2] and other service benefits. It was specifically pleaded that shortly prior to his death, the mother (peoner herein), in connivance with others, got certain applica*ons dated 15.09.2015 and 26.09.2015 prepared showing change of nomina*on in her favour, which were alleged to be forged and fabricated, par*cularly in view of the deteriorated medical condi*on of the deceased. 3. The pe**oner herein contested the claim by asser*ng that she had been validly nominated by the deceased and, therefore, she alone was en*tled to receive all benefits. It was further pleaded that the widow never took care of the deceased and had leC the matrimonial home much earlier. A counter-claim was also set up by the pe**oner seeking issuance of succession cer*ficate in her favour. 4. On the basis of pleadings, the learned Trial Court framed the necessary issues and the par*es led extensive oral as well as documentary evidence. 5. The most important aspect of the evidence was the medical record of the deceased, proved through PW5, which clearly indicated that the deceased had remained unconscious from 13.08.2015 *ll his death. Upon apprecia*on of such evidence, the learned Trial Court returned a categorical finding that the alleged leHer dated 26.09.2015 seeking change of nomina*on could not have been executed by the deceased, as he was not in a conscious or fit state of mind. The Court further held that the widow and minor son are Class-I legal heirs and that a nominee does not acquire ownership rights but merely acts as a receiver for the benefit of legal heirs. Consequently, the pe**on was allowed and the counter-claim filed by the pe**oner herein (mother) was dismissed. 6. Aggrieved against the said judgment, the pe**oner preferred an appeal, which too came to be dismissed by the learned Addi*onal District YOGESH MEHTA 2026.04.29 15:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6162-2025 (O&M) [3] Judge, Rohtak. The First Appellate Court, aCer re-apprecia*ng the en*re material on record, concurred with the findings of the Trial Court. It was observed that the medical evidence rendered the alleged change of nomina*on wholly doubJul and unreliable. The Court further held that under the scheme of the Hindu Succession Act, read with the applicable service rules governing pensionary and re*ral benefits, the widow and minor son were clearly en*tled to the benefits in ques*on. The Appellate Court also reiterated the seHled posi*on that nomina*on does not override the rights of legal heirs and, in the context of family pension and similar benefits, statutory rules would prevail. 7. Assailing the above concurrent findings, learned counsel for the pe**oner - mother has contended that the courts below have erred in ignoring the nomina*on made in favour of the pe**oner and have wrongly excluded her from en*tlement, despite being a Class-I heir. It has also been argued that the findings recorded are perverse and liable to be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdic*on. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the pe**oner and having perused the record, this Court finds no merit in the present revision pe**on. 9. It is trite that the revisional jurisdic*on of this Court is extremely limited and is confined to examining jurisdic*onal errors, patent illegality or perversity in findings. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below cannot be interfered with merely because another view is possible. 10. In the present case, both the courts below have, on the basis of cogent medical evidence, recorded a clear finding that the deceased was not in a posi*on to execute any document at the relevant *me, when the alleged change of nomina*on is said to have been made. This finding is purely factual and is based on proper apprecia*on of evidence. No perversity or misreading YOGESH MEHTA 2026.04.29 15:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6162-2025 (O&M) [4] of evidence has been demonstrated. 11. Even otherwise, the legal posi*on regarding nomina*on is well seHled. A nominee is merely a person authorized to receive the amount on behalf of the legal heirs and does not acquire any beneficial interest in deroga*on of the rights of the heirs under the law of succession. The courts below have rightly applied this principle. 12. So far as the en*tlement to service and pensionary benefits is concerned, the same is governed not only by the law of succession but also by the relevant service rules. The First Appellate Court has correctly no*ced that such benefits, par*cularly family pension, are payable in accordance with statutory rules, which primarily recognize the spouse and dependent children as beneficiaries. Even Haryana Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 2016, relied by Ld. Counsel for the pe**oner – mother give primacy to the widow and children over and above the mother. 13. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the judgments passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court do not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or perversity warran*ng interference in revisional jurisdic*on. The findings recorded are well reasoned, based on evidence and in consonance with seHled principles of law. 14. Consequently, the present revision pe**on stands dismissed. Pending applica*ons, if any, also stand disposed of. No order as to costs. 29.04.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No Uploaded on: 29.04.2026 YOGESH MEHTA 2026.04.29 15:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document