The appellants are the legal heirs of the Defendants 1 and 3 in OS.No.30 of 1998 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Gooty, Ananthapur district.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The respondents 1 to 3 in this appeal are the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are the sons of second defendant. The first defendant is the senior uncle of the plaintiffs. The third defendant is the junior paternal uncle of the plaintiffs and the fourth defendant is the aunt of the plaintiffs. They filed a suit for partition claiming that the plaint schedule property originally belongs to one Shaban Hajee Sarwar Saheb, who is the grand father of the plaintiffs and father of Defendants 1 to 4. The said Hajee Sarwar Saheb said to have executed registered will deed in favour of the plaintiffs on 25-12-1975 at Jammalamadugu bequeathing all his properties to the plaintiffs. The said Sarwar Saheb died on 20-2-1976 at Tadpatri. Under Mohammedan Law, the bequest is valid to 1/3rd share of the deceased. The remaining 2/3rd share devolve upon the defendants. The plaintiffs and defendants are enjoying the property jointly. Due to misunderstanding among them, the plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and separate possession of their 1/3rd shared in the suit properties. According to them, the defendants 1 to 3 will be entitled to 4/7th share and defendant No.4 will be entitled to 2/21st share in the plaint schedule properties as heirs of late Sarwar Saheb.

3. The defendants filed their written statement but contended that the suit property is not the absolute property of Sarwar Saheb but it belongs to partnership firm. In the said partnership firm, Sarwar Saheb had 40% share, while Defendants 1 and 3 had each 30% share. They also disputed the will said to have been executed by Sarwar Saheb.

4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues for trial:

(1) Whether the will executed by late Sarwar Saheb is true valid and binding on the defendants?

(2) Whether the suit properties are properties of late Sarwar Saheb?

(3) Whether the Court fee paid is not correct?

(4) To what relief?

5. Before the trial court, on behalf of the plaintiffs PW.1 was examined and Exs.A1 and A2 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced. After hearing both parties, preliminary decree was passed. Thereafter, an Advocate-Commissioner by name, Sri A.Prabhakar was appointed to inspect the property, draw necessary sketch and file detailed report allotting shares to plaintiffs as well as defendants and their legal heirs. On 29-12-2004 the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gooty passed a final decree and the order reads as follows:

Petitioners and respondents counsel filed a joint memo stating that they have no objection for the Commissioner's Report filed in this petition. Hence, the petitioners and respondents are entitled to share of their properties as per the Commissioner's report. Final decree is passed in terms of Commissioner's report. Petitioners are directed to file N.J. stamps for engrossing decree. Memo recorded.

6. Aggrieved over the said order, an appeal was filed by the legal representatives of third defendant. The contention of the appellants in AS.No.28 of 2006 is that they have not authorized their counsel to agree for a compromise on their behalf based on which a final decree was passed and the trial court has acted against Order-23, Rule-3 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the signature of the parties has not been obtained in the compromise petition and therefore, the trial court should not have accepted compromise in the absence of signatures of the parties or the parties themselves. The said contention raised on behalf of the appellant was rejected by the lower appellate court on the ground that under Order-3, Rule-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, counsel engaged by the parties are entitled and have power to represent on behalf of the appellants to sign or ac