Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.— List revised. No one appears for the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the applicants. One Shri Turab Ali died in an accident. Smt. Shabeena Siddiqui respondent no.1 in this revision claiming to be the wife of the deceased filed claim petition no.7 of 1998 before M.A.C.T. at Lucknow for compensation. Applicants claiming to be daughter and son of the deceased from his previous wife also filed claim petition at Sitapur in the form of claim petition no.342 of 1998 which was dismissed on 15.3.2003 on the ground that claim petition by other legal representative i.e. Shabeena Sidiqui had already been filed at Lucknow and decided on 29.1.1999 awarding compensation of Rs.1,68,000/- and directing the Insurance Company to pay the said amount. Thereafter applicants filed an application in the claim petition no. 7 of 1998 before Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/IX Additional District Judge, Lucknow for recall of the order dated 29.1.1999. Said Application was registered as Misc. Application No. 8 C of 2003. Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Lucknow dismissed the said application on 29.7.2006. Orders dated 29.1.1999 and 29.7.2006 have been challenged through this revision. In the order dated 29.7.2006 it is mentioned that claimant i.e. respondent no.1 had already withdrawn the amount awarded to her on 22.5.1999. In my opinion there is no error in the impugned orders. The proper remedy available to the applicants is to file a suit for recovery of the amount of their share against respondent no.1 Smt. Shabeena Siddiqui. If out of several legal representatives one or some of them receive any amount payable on death of the ancestor he/they hold the amount of the share of other Legal Representatives in trust for them and are liable to pay the same to them as held by the Supreme Court in Smt. Sarbati Devi vs. Smt. Usha Devi A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 349. Accordingly applicants are granted liberty to file suit for recovery of the amount of their share in the compensation received by respondent no.1 against her. As applicants were prosecuting wrong proceedings with due diligence hence in my opinion they are entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of Limitation Act. With the above observation in favour of the applicants revision is dismissed. _____________