( 1 ) HEARD Sri Mahadeva, the learned Counsel representing the appellants and Sri Somakonda Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the respondents.

( 2 ) THE substantial questions of law raised in the present second appeal as per the order made on 21-3-1997 are: (A) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case a suit for mandatory and perpetual injunction can be entertained after a long lapse of the construction of the hut in question for removal of the same? (B) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case can the Court below substitute the Advocate Commissioner report and Mandal Surveyor report so far as the free ingress and egress of the plaintiffs without there being any objections filed by the plaintiffs to the said report? (C) Whether the Court below is right in shifting the burden on the defendants on the face of Section 101 of the evidence Act? (D)Whether the order in appeal is sustainable in view of the judgment reported in AIR 1969 AP 368 without there being any necessity to remove the encroachment in view of Ex. X-4? in C. M. P. No. 3092/97, interim suspension also had been granted. Both the Counsel had taken this Court through the respecti