Legal Principle: An agreement entered into by way of a wager/bet is unenforceable in law. Fact…

The correct choice is: “Thomas need not share the three lakh with Raja and Hoja since it is the outcome of an unenforceable agreement.”

Applying the given principle, the whole arrangement is a wagering one: Raja and Hoja gave money to Thomas so that he could bet on a cricket match, and the ₹3 lakh is the result of that bet. An agreement by way of wager cannot be enforced in law, so Raja and Hoja cannot legally compel Thomas to share the winnings; Thomas need not share them.

“Thomas must share rupees three lakh with Raja and Hoja equally.”, “Thomas must return rupees thousand each to Raja and Hoja.” and “If Thomas does not pay them rupees two lakh each, Raja and Hoja can sue him to recover their share.” all assume some legal obligation arising from the wagering arrangement, which the principle says cannot be enforced. (In actual Indian law, Section 30 of the Contract Act makes wagers void, and collateral agreements are treated differently in some cases, but the question must be answered on the principle given.)