1. This writ petition is filed challenging the award passed by the Lok Adalat on the ground that in the so-called compromise entered into before Lok Adalat, the petitioners have not been allotted any share in the schedule property though each one of them had 1/4th share in it.

2. The material on record discloses that one Manikchand Bhadaie and his son Nagaraj Bhadaie constituted a Hindu undivided family. Nagaraj Bhadaie had two daughters. Manikchand Bhadaie also had two daughters. Manikchand Bhadaie and his son Nagaraj Bhadaie are dead. The suit is filed by the widow and children of Nagaraj Bhadaie against the wife of Manikchand Bhadaie and her two daughters for partition and separate possession of their legitimate share in all the plaint schedule properties. They claimed 3/4th share in the schedule properties. According to them, the 1st defendant was entitled to 1/4th share and two daughters have no right as they had relinquished their interest in the joint family property on 10.04.1989 by executing a deed.

3. The grievance of the plaintiffs was about three months prior to the date of filing of the suit, the 1st defendant got people, relatives from her place and threw away the plaintiffs from the family house property. When she demanded a share, it was denied. Therefore, the suit was filed. After service of notice, written statement was filed by the defendants contesting the claim. The order-sheet in the suit discloses that defendants No.1 to 3 were represented by the same counsel. An order of injunction restraining the defendants from alienating came to be passed by consent on 03.08.2010. At the same time, plaintiff also undertook not to obstruct the defendants in the enjoyment of the property.

4. On 13.04.2011, I.A.No.4 was filed under Order XXXII Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code with the certificate of the counsel. The learned Judge, after perusing the application, was of the view as the compromise is in the interest of minors, he allowed the application and the permission to compromise the suit was given. Thereafter, a memo was filed for transferring the matter to the Lok Adalat. Before the Lok Adalat an application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC was filed. The order-sheet discloses that the said compromise petition was perused and enquiry was made with the parties; they stated that they had agreed to the terms of the compromise; hence, compromise was accepted and an order came to be passed decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs in terms of the compromise petition. Accordingly, an award came to be passed.

5. The grievance of the petitioners is, when the plaintiffs in the suit filed an execution petition, notice was served on them, they approached a counsel and then they came to know the passing of this compromise award in which no share is given to them. They were advised that if they were aggrieved by the said award, they should prefer a writ petition. Accordingly, the present writ petition is filed.

6. As set out above, defendants No.2 and 3 have 1/4th share in the property of their father. Even if it is a co-parcenery property, in view of the amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, they are entitled to a share equal to that of a son. In such an event, they are entitled to 1/4th share each. Plaintiffs in the suit have categorically stated that the defendants have relinquished their interest in the property by executing a deed. The said allegation has been denied by defendants No.2 and 3 in the written statement filed by them. It is also the case of the plaintiff that defendant No.1 has thrown out the plaintiffs; she even sought for an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the property which was granted, in this background, when we look at the compromise petition. The defendants No.2 and 3 who have 1/4th share each in the schedule property are not allotted any share in the property at all. They are also illiterate, they are not wealthy. The same advocate is representing defendan