THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3004 OF 2011 Dated: 15.11.2011 Between : Smt. Uma Rani … Petitioner And Masetty Rajaiah and 3 others … Respondents The Court made the following:- THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3004 OF 2011 ORDER: The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.423 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the VIII Additional District Judge at L.B.Nagar, R.R.District. The suit is filed against the respondents herein seeking partition of the suit schedule property and for allotment of 1/5th share to the plaintiff. Pending the suit, the plaintiff/revision petitioner filed I.A.No.2821 of 2009 seeking a direction to the 1st defendant /1st respondent herein to collect the rents pertaining to the suit schedule properties and deposit the same in to the Court. By order dated 06.06.2011, the said petition was allowed with a direction to the 1st respondent to collect and deposit 1/5th share of the rental income derived from the suit schedule properties regularly till the disposal of the suit. The said order dated 06.06.2011 is under challenge in this revision petition filed by the plaintiff contending that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court below ought to have directed the 1st respondent to deposit the entire rentals received from the suit schedule properties instead of restricting to 1/5th. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.2821 of 2009, it was specifically pleaded by the plaintiff that the 1st defendant was the Kartha of the family and was collecting all the rents in respect of the suit schedule properties. It was also claimed that a sum of Rs.1,41,405/- per month is being received by the 1st defendant every month towards rents. It is stated that the 1st defendant did not file any counter opposing the petition. However, the 2nd defendant filed a counter contending that the plaintiff was not a legitimate shareholder. Be that as it may, having regard to the fact that the petitioner is claiming 1/5th share in the suit schedule properties, the Court below cannot be said to have committed any error in restricting the amounts to be deposited to 1/5th in stead of entire rentals being collected by the 1st defendant. Since the direction to deposit 1/5th share of the rentals being received from the plaint schedule property is on par with the claim of the plaintiff in the main suit, the order under revision does not suffer from any patent error of fact or law warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ___________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 15.11.2011 Note: Issue CC in three days (B/o) Ivd