Judgment VINEY MITTAL, J. 1. The appellant is the legal representative of deceased Khilandi bai. 2. The plaintiff has lost concurrently before the two courts below. She filed a suit for declaration to the effect that as mother of deceased,smt. 3. Laxmi Rattan, she is entitled to inherit and receive all the service benefits of the deceased and was also entitled to family pension etc. The plaintiff claimed that Laxmi Rattan was the daughter of the plaintiff and had joined Lecturer in the Language department,haryana on november 25,1968. She died as an unnatural death on September 23,1992. 4. An F. I. R. was registered under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against raju, her step son. At the time of her death, aforesaid Laxmi Rattan was working as a Lecturer in the Government Higher Secondary school,seswan,district Kaithal. The plaintiff claimed that Laxmi rattan was having strained relations with her husband, S. P. Rattan, defendant No.4 and,therefore, being her mother, it was the plaintiff alone who was entitled to all the service benefits of aforesaid Laxmi Rattan and was also entitled to family pension. 5. The defendants contested the suit. In their written statement, defendants No.1 to 3 claimed that as per pension rules only the widower or minor children were entitled to service/terminal benefits of the deceased employee and the plaintiff being the mother was not so entitled. A similar written statement was filed by defendant No.4, S. P. Rattan who claimed that being her husband,he was entitled to service/terminal benefits of the deceased employee Laxmi Rattan. 6. Both the courts below have concurrently held that defendant no.4, S. P. Rattan was the husband of the deceased employee, Laxmi rattan and,therefore, he was entitled to all the service/terminal benefits of the deceased employee, Laxmi Rattan. It was also noticed that defendant no.4 had died during the pendency of the suit and had been succeeded by his legal representatives Rajiv Rattan and Jyoti Rattan, therefore, they were entitled to succeed to his estate. It was also noticed that plaintiff being the mother could not claim any preferential right than S. P. Rattan, the husband of the deceased. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed and her appeal failed before the learned first appellate Court. 7. Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by the two courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed and her appeal failed before the learned first appellate Court. 7. Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by the two courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal. Dismissed.