THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 929 of 2010 Oral order: This revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19-11-2009 of the II Addl. District Judge, Prakasam in CMA No. 2 of 2009. The court below while allowing the appeal in part modified the order of the trial court in dismissing in toto I.A.No. 1376 of 2008 and confirming the order in I.,A.No. 1077 of 2008 by directing that the revision petitioner-plaintiff shall continue in possession of the suit schedule property subject to deposit of an amount of Rs.5000/- per acre per annum to the credit of the suit O.S.No. 122 of 2008. The facts in brief are that the petitioner is the plaintiff who obtained a temporary injunction in I.A.No. 1077 of 2008 against her son and grand children, who are defendants 1 to 4 respectively. The defendants filed I.A.No. 1376 of 2008 under order 39 Rule 4 of CPC to set aside the temporary injunction granted in I.A.No. 1077 of 2008, It requires to be noticed that the suit was filed for cancellation of a registered gift deed dated 20-8-1994 claimed by the revision petitioner- plaintiff to have been executed by her in favour of her minor grand children defendants 2 to 4 on the basis of misrepresentation by their father, the 1st defendant that it was for a power of attorney and not a registered gift deed. The trial court granted temporary injunction and aggrieved thereby, the defendants preferred an appeal in C.M.A.No. 2 of 2009. The lower appellate Court while sustaining the temporary injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff-revision petitioner however observed that in the challenge to the validity of the registered gift deed, the burden is very heavy on the plaintiff. With a view to ensure that the ultimate successful parties in the lis would be able to derive the fruits of the litigation, the lower appellate court directed the plaintiff-revision petitioner to deposit Rs.5000/- per acre peer annum in respect of the suit schedule property of an extent of Ac,3-75 cents to the credit of the suit. This Court discerns no error in the application of law or in the exercise of discretion by the Court below, warranting revisional interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. The revision petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. ________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 19th March, 2010. GRR