IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3256 OF 2009 Between: P. Chinna Chowdappa and others .....PETITIONERS AND Posa Pedda Chowdappa and another ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3256 OF 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 20.04.2009, in I.A.No.1007 of 2008 in O.S.No.266 of 2004, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur, whereunder and whereby, the petition, filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to give direction to petitioner No.3/defendant No.3 and respondent No.2 to deposit the rents into Court, was allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the suit schedule property was divided by metes and bounds long back and the parties are enjoying their respective shares in pursuance of that partition and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 opposed the same. 4. The suit was filed for partition of the suit schedule property by respondent No.1 herein against the petitioners herein. Only after determining the shares of the parties by virtue of the preliminary decree, the mesne profit enquiry has to be gone into. Till then, the parties cannot have a definite share in the property. It seems that the private telecom communications i.e., respondent No.2 herein has set up a telephone tower on the upstairs of one of the suit schedule properties and that the owner of the private telecom communications seems to have been paying rents to the petitioners herein, who are the defendants in the suit. The trial Court exceeded its jurisdiction in directing respondent No.2 herein to deposit the rents directly or through the petitioners herein into the Court, especially when the shares of the parties have not been determined by passing a preliminary decree. Where a decree is passed in a suit, normally, it determines and declares the rights of the parties. Ordinarily there are two decrees in a partition suit viz., (i) preliminary and (ii) final. Preliminary decree determines the rights of the parties and shares of all eligible claimants, whereas, final decree carries out and effects partition by metes and bounds of the property on the basis of preliminary decree. After determining the share of respondent, an enquiry has to be conducted to ascertain the income that may be derived from the property under partition. Till then, the respondent has no definite share or right over the petition schedule property. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order, dated 20.04.2009, in I.A.No.1007 of 2008 in O.S.No.266 of 2004, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as early as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J January 31, 2011 MD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3256 OF 2009 January 31, 2011