JUDGMENT : Mr. Anant Ramanath Hegde, J. - This appeal is filed by defendant No.1 in O.S.No.19/2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Raibag, assailing the judgment and decree dated 26.02.2014. 2. The suit was one for partition and separate possession. The suit is decreed as prayed for awarding 1/3rd share each to plaintiffs No.1 and 2 as well as defendant No.1. The genealogy of the parties is as under: 3. One Ittappa was the propositus. Plaintiff No.1 Kanakavva is the wife of Ittappa. Siddawwa and Pundalik are the daughter and son of Ittappa and Kannawwa. Ittappa died prior to 1994. Pundalik died in the year 2009 and he is survived by his wife Nirmala (defendant No.1) and Kannawwa, his mother the plaintiff No.1. Admittedly, Pundalik was serving as an employer in the South Western Railway prior to his death. 4. The plaintiffs claimed share in the immovable properties described in suit 'A' schedule property and also share suit 'B' schedule property i.e., in Rs. 6,00,000/-, service benefits alleged to have been received by the defendant No.1 - Nirmala, the wife of Pundalik. 5. Plaintiff No.1/respondent No.1 died during the pendency of this appeal on 03.01.2022. Application is filed before this Court by the 2nd respondent, who claims to be the legatee under the alleged Will dated 24.12.2010. Application was allowed for a limited purpose of enabling the 2nd respondent to defend the appeal as a legatee of the deceased 1st respondent. 6. The suit was contested by the defendant No.1 Nirmala and defendants No.2 and 3, the employer of Pundalik also contested the suit and took a stand that the plaintiffs are not entitled for the service benefits of late Pundalik. The defendant No.1 also took a contention that other two joint family properties are not included in the suit and as such, the suit is not maintainable. 7. The trial Court decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff No.1 is entitled to 1/3rd share, plaintiff No.2 is entitled for 1/3rd share and defendant No.1 is entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit 'A' schedule property. The trial Court also held that the plaintiff No.1 is entitled to 1/2 share in the suit 'B' schedule property, i.e., the service benefits received after the demise of Pundalik. 8. Sri. Vitthal S. Teli, learned counsel appearing for the defendant no.1/appellant, submits that; 8.1. The trial Court also held that the plaintiff No.1 is entitled to 1/2 share in the suit 'B' schedule property, i.e., the service benefits received after the demise of Pundalik. 8. Sri. Vitthal S. Teli, learned counsel appearing for the defendant no.1/appellant, submits that; 8.1. The impugned judgment and decree awarding 1/2 share in favour of the plaintiff No.1 in respect of suit 'B' schedule property are impermissible. 8.2. The mother of the deceased employee is not entitled to any share in the service benefits after the demise of late Pundalik and all the service benefits should go to defendant No.1, wife of late Pundalik. 8.3. The suit is not maintainable as other two properties belonging to joint family are not included in the suit for partition. 8.4. Though specific stand is taken in the written statement, issue is not framed by the trial Court relating to maintainability of the suit for not including other two joint family properties. 9. Sri. Sangram Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/respondents, would submit that; 9.1. The trial Court is justified in passing the decree for partition and separate possession. 9.2. As far as suit 'A' schedule property is concerned, there is no dispute that the properties originally belonged to one Itappa and are inherited by the plaintiff and the defendant. 9.3. As far as service benefits is concerned, that is the estate standing in the name of deceased Pundalik at the time of his death, who is the son of plaintiff No.1 and that being the case, plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1 would succeed to the estate as Class-I heirs. 10. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and also perused the impugned judgment and decree. 11. The following points arise for consideration: i. Whether the trial Court is justified in granting ½ share in the service benefits of deceased Pundalik in favour of plaintiff No.1 and ½ share in favour of defendant No.1? ii. Whether the trial Court is justified in holding that the property bearing Survey No.50/3 and 51/3 of Devnakatti village are not the joint family properties and the suit is maintainable without including those two properties? 12. Though the stand is taken in the written statement by the defendant No.1 that the suit is defective for not including all the joint family properties, no documents are produced in this regard. 12. Though the stand is taken in the written statement by the defendant No.1 that the suit is defective for not including all the joint family properties, no documents are produced in this regard. Though the trial Court has not framed any issue in this regard, based on the materials placed on record, the trial Court has given a finding that the stand of the plaintiffs relating to the defect in the suit for not including the joint family properties, is not established. Even before this Court no document is placed to take a view that the family owns other properties. 13. Admittedly, the suit is filed in respect of suit 'B' schedule property, which according to the plaintiffs is a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- received by the defendant No.1 after the demise of the son of plaintiff No.1 - Pundalik. Though it is claimed that Rs. 6,00,000/- is the amount received as service benefits, both the parties have failed to produce documents in this regard. The defendant No.1 has taken a defence that she has received only Rs. 1,35,000/- as the service benefits of late Pundalik. Despite the fact that the Employer/Railways was made as a party before the Court, unfortunately, the Employer has not produced any records to show that how much amount is paid to the defendant No.1. 14. Sri. Vitthal Teli, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No.1, referring to Rules 70 to 75 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules', for brevity), would contend that, under the aforementioned Rules, the mother would not become a heir to succeed to the service benefits. 15. On the other hand, Sri. Sangram S. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs would contend that the wife of late Pundalik was a nominee to the service benefits and role of a nominee is to receive the amount and nomination does not confer any exclusively right in favour of the nominee. The nominee is under an obligation to distribute the amount in favour of all the persons who become heirs under the Law of Succession. 16. This Court perused Rules 70 and 72 of the Rules. Under the aforementioned Rule, the family pension is payable to the widow. The mother is not specified as one of the beneficiaries entitled to family pension. 17. Sri. 16. This Court perused Rules 70 and 72 of the Rules. Under the aforementioned Rule, the family pension is payable to the widow. The mother is not specified as one of the beneficiaries entitled to family pension. 17. Sri. Vitthal Teli, learned counsel for the appellant, at this juncture, has produced the document to show that Rs. 1,35,024/- is paid to the defendant No.1 as a family pension. 18. This being the position, this Court is of the view that the family pension payable to the wife cannot be partitioned between the wife and the mother of the deceased. To this extent, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court have to be set aside and the entire family pension, i.e., Rs. 1,35,024/- shall belong to the wife of the deceased Pundalik, namely defendant No.1. 19. As far as suit 'A' schedule property is concerned, the decree of partition to the extent granted by the trial Court awarding 1/3rd share to plaintiff No.1, 1/3rd share to plaintiff No.2 and 1/3rd share to defendant No.1, is in accordance with law. However, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the mother (plaintiff No.1), who had 1/3rd share in the suit 'A' schedule property, died during the pendency of this appeal. After her death, succession opens under section 15(1)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Under the said provision, 1/3rd share of deceased Kannawwa (plaintiff No.1) would devolve upon her daughter Siddawwa, the plaintiff No.2, who is the only Class-I heir. The defendant No.1 is not Class-I heir of Kannawwa, in respect of 1/3rd share in suit 'B' schedule property. 20. Accordingly, plaintiff No.2 is entitled to 2/3rd share in suit 'A' schedule property and the defendant No.1 is entitled to 1/3rd share in suit 'A' schedule property and defendant No.1 is entitled to entire family pension in suit 'B' schedule property. 21. With these observations, impugned judgment and decree dated 26.02.2014, passed in O.S.No.19/2010, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Raibag, are modified. 22. Appeal is allowed in part. 23. Registry to draw the decree accordingly.