Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. This revision petition has arisen out of the order dated 7,11.1998 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Saran at Chapra, in Misc. Case no. 16/97 whereby compromise recorded in Partition Suit No. 269 of 1997 has been set aside under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure holding the same to be unlawful and fraudulent. Admittedly, the parties to the suit are three brothers and the plaintiff- opposite party filed the above mentioned partition suit bearing no. 269 of 1997 for partition of the properties mentioned in Schedule I to IV in the plaint claiming his 1/3 share. The Scheduled properties in the partition suit included ancestral properties and also the purchased properties by the three brothers. It was averred that the defendant no.1 (petitioner no.1) Dwarika Giri was the karta of the family and used to reside in the ancestral house in village while the plaintiff used to work in a colliery and from his (sic) he used to send money to the defendant no.1. When he retired in the year 1990 he came to the village to spend the retired life. Defendant no.2 (petitioner no,2) Bidya Shagar Giri was in military service and after retirement from military service he was working as security guard in the Burn and Company at Asansol, He also used to send money to the defendant no,1. It is a case of the plaintiff that by money sent by the plaintiff defendant no.2 properties were purchased in the name of three brothers although there was no contribution to the consideration amount by the defendant no.1 and as such all the properties including the ancestral and purchased properties the plaintiff had got 1/3 share. 2. In the written statement filed defendant no.2 took the plea that as his income was higher he was sending more money than the plaintiff and as such, he has got more share to the purchased properties. Defendant no.1 also supported the case of the defendant no.2. While the suit was proceeding contestedly a compromise petition was filed, which has been marked as Ext. A in this case, alleged to be signed by the parties and also their counsel and on the basis of the compromise petition a decree was passed forming the compromise petition as part of the decree. While the suit was proceeding contestedly a compromise petition was filed, which has been marked as Ext. A in this case, alleged to be signed by the parties and also their counsel and on the basis of the compromise petition a decree was passed forming the compromise petition as part of the decree. Only after two days of the filing of the compromise petition the opposite party-plaintiff filed a petition under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure contending, inter alia, that he was never a party to the compromise petition nor he instructed his lawyer to sign any compromise petition on his behalf and that unequal distribution in the properties in the compromise petition show how fraudulently the compromise decree was procured. It may be mentioned here that in the purchased properties share was given more in favour of the defendant no.2 as per compromise petition. On the basis of the petition being filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure Misc. Case no.16 of 1997 was registered, notices were issued to the petitioners and they filed objection supporting the compromise petition. During the course of hearing of the Misc. Case, a hand-writing expert was engaged who found the signature of the opposite party in the compromise petition to be genuine and proper. Both parties adduced evidence in support of their respective cases. After consideration of the documents to the oral evidence learned court below came to the finding that although compromise petition might be signed by all the parties in the last page but the unequal distribution of the properties smacked of fraud being practised on the opposite party and as such holding the compromise petition to be an unlawful and fraudulent one, and the same was set aside by the impugned order. Hence this revision petition. 3. Mr. S.K.Mazumdar, Senior Advocate for and on behalf of the petitioners, has submitted that the learned court below has committed error of Jaw in setting aside compromise petition by assumption & conjecture and that materials on record were justifiable in favour of holding the compromise petition to be proper and legal. His further submission is that although fraud was alleged from the side of the opposite party but such fraud could not be proved. His further submission is that although fraud was alleged from the side of the opposite party but such fraud could not be proved. His further submission is that such filing of the petition for setting aside compromise is unwarranted under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On the other hand, Mr. M.N. Parbat, appearing for and on behalf of the opposite party, has supported the impugned order by referring to the materials on record and oral evidence adduced by the parties. 4. On the last point being raised regarding setting aside of the compromise petition on a petition under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Mr. Mazumdar have not stressed much on this point as it has become settled principle of law that compromise decree on the ground of fraud and unlawfulness can be set aside not only under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure but also under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure considering the situation and circumstances of each case. In the present case only after filing of the compromise petition within two days the petition has been filed for setting aside the compromise. It is also legal principle that the court of law has got discretion to accept a compromise if the same is found to be legal and free from all doubts. If it can be shown with doubt about its lawfulness and genuinity a court of law has got right and jurisdiction to set aside the same or not to accept the same and asking the parties to proceed with the suit. 5. On perusal of the compromise petition itself, which is a typed one, it could be found that it spread over four pages. On vital pages where the shares have been allotted and distributed signatures of the parties are not there. Only in the last page signatures are there. So there remains possibility of changing of pages which were not signed by the parties when the compromise petition itself a typed one and the typist who had typed the compromise petition has not been examined in the case. Only in the last page signatures are there. So there remains possibility of changing of pages which were not signed by the parties when the compromise petition itself a typed one and the typist who had typed the compromise petition has not been examined in the case. Moreover, from the initial statement made in the compromise petition that the compromise was arrived at the intervention of well-wishers and elderly family persons then it was incumbent on the part of the parties who support the compromise petition to get those well-wishers or elderly family members to be examined for proving the genuinity of the compromise petition. But the petitioners had not adduced any evidence in this regard except one witness who has stated that in his presence the agreement was arrived at. But on perusal of his whole evidence including that of the cross-examination portion definitely his deposition does not create much credence. Moreover, opposite parties themselves had admitted during the cross-examination even after the compromise petition was filed to the effect that in the suit property all the three brothers have got 1/3 share which is totally against what has been averred in the compromise petition. Learned court below has rightly given much stress on such evidence being adduced from the side of the petitioners. The compromise petition reveals of unequal distribution to the purchased properties on the face of it and those portion of the compromise petition had never been signed by the parties and naturally the same smacked of fraud being practiced. It is true when there is allegation of fraud it remains the bounden duty of the parties who speak of fraud to prove the same by adducing cogent evidence. But such fraud, even if, cannot be proved by proper evidence, the same can be proved by showing of circumstances and in the present case the circumstances are unequal distribution of the properties although even after compromise being affected the parties have deposed to the effect that the brothers have got equal shares in the properties. 6. In independent scrutiny of the evidence on record and on perusal of the compromise petition also I am also of the same view the compromise is not a proper one and it remains unlawful as there was unequal distribution. 6. In independent scrutiny of the evidence on record and on perusal of the compromise petition also I am also of the same view the compromise is not a proper one and it remains unlawful as there was unequal distribution. It might be that on proper adjudication of the suit unequal shares might be held by the Court in future but at this stage before going into adjudication there cannot be jumping up of unequal shares between the parties, when there is averment to effect that only two brothers used to send money for the purchase of properties in the name of three brothers but at this stage i am not being bothered about such assertion by the parties. The fact remains that the compromise petition shows unequal distribution of properties which was purchased in the name of three brothers and even after compromise also the petitioners have averred that three brothers have got equal shares in the whole of the joint family property. 7. On going through the impugned order and the materials on record, I find that the same is not suffering from any illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error. Hence there is no scope to invoke jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 8. In the result, the revision petition is rejected. But in the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs. Stay order passed earlier regarding further proceeding of the suit is hereby withdrawn.