(1.) The plaintiffs are the appellants in this appeal filed against the orders in I.A. No. 588 of 2000 in O.S. No. 94 of 2000 dated 24-10-2000 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Kakinada dismissing an application filed by them purported to be under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking temporary injunction restraining the respondents-defendants 1 to 4 from interfering with the boundary bunds situate in the plaint schedule lands in Survey No. 146/1, 146/2, 146/6 and 146/8 of Pawara village of Samalkot Mandal, East Godavari District pending disposal of the suit.
(2.) In the suit filed seeking permanent injunction on the self same lines, the case of the appellants-plaintiffs is that they have purchased the suit lands under Ex.A.1 dated 30-4-1998, A.4 dated 11-6-1998 and Exs.A.2, A.3 and A.5 to A.7 dated 28-4-2000 and Ex.A.8 dated 20-4-2000 and the suit lands are adjacent to the land in Survey No. 145 wherein there exists a Raju Tank on East-Northern side. However, with a view to stop the over-flowing of the tank water and for the purpose of carrying on cultivation, the plaintiffs have raised bunds along the boundaries on all the three sides on their own lands. However, the respondents 1 to 4, having cast an evil eye on the property purchased by the plaintiffs and who could not succeed in getting the said property, are trying to interfere and influencing the respondents 5 and 6, who are the authorities, and in collusion with them got issued a notice dated 3-6-2000. Hence the relief of permanent injunction and pending the suit, temporary injunction.
(3.) Respondents 1 to 4 claiming to be the ryots contested the application stating that the suit lands claimed by the plaintiffs are the fore-shore lands and there was never any bund in between the suit lands and the tank in Survey No. 145 and it is only on their recent purchase that the plaintiffs have been trying to construct the same which obstructs the customary outflow of the tank to the detriment of the ryots under the ayacut. Further, in view of the findings already given in the earlier proceedings in L.P.A. No. 105 of 1959 dated 4-11-1960 and Ex.B.1 the judgment in O.S. No. 271 of 1951 dated 28-1-1953 on the file of the Principal District Munsif at Kakinada, the question of raising any bunds does not arise.