THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.88 of 2022 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice T. Vinod Kumar This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order dated.21.12.2021in I.A. No. 758 of 2021 in O.S. No. 158 of 2021 on the file of XVI Additional district and sessions judge cum Addl. Family Court Ranga Reddy district at Malkajgiri.

2. The Appellants herein are respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the underlying Interlocutory Application and defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the O.S. No. 158 of 2021 filed by the respondent no.1 to 3 herein as plaintiff for perpetual injunction.

3. In the aforesaid suit, the respondent No.1 to 3/plaintiffs have filed the underlying Interlocutory Application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 C.P.C. to grant interim relief of injunction restraining the appellants herein from interfering with the peaceful possession of the petition schedule ‘B’ property.

4. The case of the appellants is that, one Hari Kuvar Pershad executed three registered sale deeds, one in favour of E. Sandeep Raj to an extent of Ac. 0-38 guntas in Sy. No. 859 vide document dated 29.12.1998 and two documents dated. 29.12.1998 & 23.11.1998 to an extent of Ac. 2-00 guntas in Sy.No. 859 in favour of M/s. Nava Durga Puleers Earth Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Chairman E. Sambaiah, in all admeasuring to an extent of Ac.2-38 guntas in Survey No.859. These lands were subsequently conveyed to appellants.

5. The appellants contend that, the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 had purchased the petition schedule ‘B’ property from their respective vendors and the vendors in turn purchased from Smt. Balamani. The alienation of the subject lands by Smt. Balamani (legal heir of deceased Veerana) to the vendors of the respondents 1 to 3 is in violation of Section 48-A (1) of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (in short ‘Act’) as the transfers were affected within eight years from the date of issuance of the ownership certificate under Section 38-E of the Act. The Civil Revision Petitions filed by both Smt. Balamani and Kum. Hari Kuvar Pershad against the orders of the Joint Collector; declaring Smt. Balamani as a protected tenant in respect of Survey No.859 are still pending before the Hon’ble High Court, and thus, the matter is sub judice.

6. The appellants contend that, they had filed suit for perpetual injunction against the respondent No. 2 & 3 vide O.S. No. 533 of2021 and I.A. No. 1502 of 2021 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, at Medchal. The trial Court had granted an ad- interim injunction in favour of appellants in the above said I.A. The respondents on the other hand obtained an order of temporary injunction from the Court of XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Addl. Family Court Ranga Reddy District at Malkajgiri in I.A. No. 758 of 2021 in O.S. No. 158 of 2021 is directly in conflict with the order passed by Principal Junior Civil Judge, Medchal in I.A. No.1507 of 2021 and thus the order dated. 21.12.2021 is in violation to the doctrine of amity and comity.

7. Per contra, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 contend that respondent No.1 purchased Item No. I which is part of Suit ‘schedule property A’ from one Dr. K. Narsimha Rao vide registered sale deed dated 25.04.2001, Respondent No.2 had purchased Item No.II from Dr. K. Ratna Kumari vide a registered sale deed dated 24.01.2001 and Respondent No.3 had purchased Item No.III from P. Mythili Sundarshwar vide a registered sale deed dated 25.04.2001. All the three properties viz., Item Nos. I to III collectively constitute the petition schedule ‘B’ property. The vendors of respondents had acquired title from one Smt. Balamani through registered sale deeds dated 26.04.1991, 11.07.1991 and 16.04.1991 respectively. Smt. Balamani had obtained rights over the said property pursuant to proceedings dated 15.01.1991 in Sy. No. 859 of Medchal village.

8. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 contend that, s