THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 844 of 2010 Oral order: This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 19-11-2009 of the II Addl. District Judge, Prakasam in C.M.A.No. 1 of 2009. The revision petitioner herein is the 1st respondent in the miscellaneous appeal and the plaintiff in O.S.No. 121 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Chirala. The defendants 2 to 4 are the revision petitioner’s grand children and children of the 1st defendant, the son of the plaintiff. The suit was filed for cancellation of a registered gift deed dated 20-8-1994 allegedly executed by the plaintiff in favour of the minor defendants 2 to 4 represented by their father the 1st defendant and for a permanent injunction; alleging that the 1st defendant by misrepresentation obtained her signature representing that it was for the purpose of obtaining a registered power of attorney, but the 1st defendant used it for executing a registered gift deed in favour of his children defendants 2 to 4. In the suit a temporary injunction was granted in I.A.No. 1074 of 2008 on 13-10-2008. Aggrieved thereby the respondents 1 to 3 herein preferred C.M.A.No. 1 of 2009. The lower appellate court prima facie found possession in favour of the revision petitioner-plaintiff and concurred with the view of the court of first instance in respect of possession and sustained the order of temporary injunction in favour of the revision petitioner. However it directed that as the burden is heavy on the plaintiff with regard to the suit allegations of fraud and misrepresentation vitiating the registered gift/settlement deed in favour of defendants 2 to 4; with a view to ensuring that the eventual fruits of the lis would flow in favour of the minor respondents 2 to 4 in the event of the suit being dismissed, ordered the plaintiff-revision petitioner to deposit Rs.5000/- per acre per annum, to the credit of the suit, pending disposal thereof. The lower appellate court clearly recorded that this deposit is ordered so that the ultimate successful party in the lis would be able to derive this amount in accordance with the disposition 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