The plaintiffs in O.S.No.110 of 1997 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid, are the appellants. They filed the suit against the respondents for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of Ac.8.98 cents of land in R.S.No.58 of Malleswaram Village of Agiripalli Mandal, Krishna District. It was pleaded that the appellants purchased Ac.8.98 cents of land out of Ac.9.48 cents through sale deed dated 31-01-1970, from one, Shaik Mohiuddin, who is the owner of Ac.11.48 cents of land in that survey number. It is also pleaded that the land was partitioned among the appellants in the year 1988, wherein appellants 1 to 5 got Ac.1.28 cents each and appellants 6 and 7 Ac.1.29 cents each. Pattadar passbooks and title deeds are said to have been issued by the Revenue Authorities. Their grievance was that the respondents were trying to encroach into their lands.

The 1st respondent filed written-statement and the same was adopted by the respondents 2 to 4. It was pleaded that the 1st respondent purchased Ac.1.19 cents of land in Malleswaram Village in D.No.82/3 and Ac.0.19 cents of land in D.No.81 of Malleboinapally Village, through sale deed dated 05-04-1956. The 2nd respondent is said to have purchased one acre of land in D.No.382/B of Malleswaram Village through sale deed dated 05-06-1956, and 10 cents in D.No.29 of Malleboinapally Village. They pleaded that there exists an irrigation tank by name, Ammanakunta, in Sy.No.58 of Malleswaram Village, and that the same is being used as a source of irrigation for their lands. Reference was also made to certain proceedings, that ensued in respect of the suit land.

The trial Court decreed the suit through judgment dated 01-03-2006. The respondents filed A.S.No.126 of 2006 in the Court of XIII Additional District Judge, Krishna at Vijayawada. The lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal through judgment dated 30-08-1991. Hence, this Second Appeal.

Sri D. Jaipal Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the lower Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the trial Court without any basis. He contends that the respondents did not claim any right of ownership or possession over the suit schedule property, and at the most, the rights pleaded by them were easementary in nature. He submits that when the respondents did not claim any right of ownership or possession, the appellants were entitled for the relief of injunction, and in case the respondents have rights of any other category, vis-à-vis the land, it was for them to seek declaration thereof by instituting proceedings under the relevant provisions of law. Learned counsel submits that the evidence on record established beyond any pale of doubt, the right of the appellants, to remain in possession of the land, and that the decree of perpetual injunction granted by the trial Court ought not to have been reversed by the Appellate Court.

Sri G. Vivekanand, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the appellants failed to establish their exclusive right over the suit schedule property, and in particular, the area covered by the tank. He contends that in several proceedings, in relation to the land in question, the existence of the tank was proved, and that the respondents cannot be denied the right to draw water from it. Learned counsel submits that the lower Appellate Court has examined the entire record, and on finding that there existed an irrigation tank; and that the appellants did not state the correct facts, allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. He further submits that no substantial question of law arises for consideration, and the appeal be dismissed.

The suit filed by the appellants herein was for the relief of injunction-simplicitor. Their grievance was that the respondents are trying to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the land. The respondents resisted the suit by pleading their right to receive water from the tank existing on the suit land. Based on the pleadin