ORDER :

1. This Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the second plaintiff in O.S.No. 231 of 2016 which is pending on the file of the III Additional District Court, Salem, questioning the order dated 22.08.2019 in I.A.No. 228 of 2019.

2. The revision petitioner filed I.A.No. 228 of 2019 under Order 23 Rule 3 and explanation 3 of CPC read with Section 151 CPC seeking to set aside the compromise award passed by the Lok Adalat dated 20.09.2017 and consequential final decree passed in O.S.No. 231 of 2016 on 22.09.2017.

3. The suit in O.S.No. 231 of 2016 had been filed by V.P. Sekar, the eldest son of this petitioner and the petitioner herein. It had been filed against the second son of this petitioner P.Loganathan, his two sons L.Ramesh and L.Suresh, his wife L.Selvamani and his daughter-in-law R.Tamilselvi, seeking a Judgment and Decree in the nature of partition into three equal parts and separate possession of the suit properties and for injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or encumbering the suit properties and for costs of the suit.

4. Pending the suit, the two daughters of the first plaintiff V.P.Sekar were also impleaded as plaintiffs.

5. It must also be mentioned that there was yet another suit in O.S.No. 191 of 2016 which had been instituted just prior to O.S.No. 231 of 2016. That suit was also pending on the file of the III Additional District Court, Salem. In that suit, the revision petitioner was the plaintiff. She had filed that suit against her second son P.Loganathan and his two sons L.Ramesh and L.Suresh. In that particular suit, she sought a Judgment and Decree to cancel a settlement deed dated 11.09.2006 executed in favour of the first defendant, to cancel a settlement deed dated 04.07.2011 executed in favour of the second defendant and to cancel a settlement deed dated 04.07.2011 executed in favour of the third defendant and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit properties and for costs.

6. A written statement had been filed by the defendants in that particular suit and a reply statement was also filed by the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff/revision petitioner herein also adduced evidence as PW-1. She was also cross examined on behalf of the defendants. The first defendant P.Loganathan was also examined as DW-1. The plaintiff had also marked Exs. A-1 to A-19. A Judgment and Decree was passed on 08.09.2017. In the Judgment, it had been observed that the parties had entered into an out of Court settlement and though the three properties over which settlement deeds were sought to be cancelled stood in the name of the revision petitioner/plaintiff, it was agreed that they were joint family properties and that the revision petitioner / plaintiff had executed the settlement deeds out of her own volition, but since they were joint family properties and she had not obtained the consent of her another son V.P.Sekar, it was agreed that the settlement deeds were not maintainable and that a decree can be passed stating that the same shall be cancelled. It was also mentioned that another suit in O.S.No. 231 of 2016 had also been filed by the revision petitioner/plaintiff along with her another son V.P.Sekar for partition and separate possession of the suit properties mentioned therein. In effect, the suit was decreed with respect to the relief sought to cancel the settlement deeds. The relief of injunction was refused since the settlement deeds were directed to be cancelled.

7. In O.S.No. 231 of 2016, on 18.08.2017 just prior to the Judgment in O.S.No. 191 of 2016, a panchayat was effected and compromise was arrived at between V.P.Sekar and P.Loganathan, the two sons of the revision petitioner herein. In the panchayat,a compromise was signed by both of them and also by their family members. The properties available were mutually divided between them. The revision petitioner was not a party to the said compromise. This co