B. PRAKASH RAO, J. ( 1 ) THESE two appeals are being filed against the common orders passed in I. A. No. 521 of 1999 in O. S. 201 of 1999, and in I. A. 2038 of 1999 in O. S. No. 584 of 1999, dated 21. 07. 2000 on the file of the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy at Hyderabad. Heard both sides. ( 2 ) THESE two applications are filed by both sides respectively seeking injunction against others from interfering with the possession over the suit scheduled lands. The main claim of the appellants in the suit filed seeking perpetual injunction is that they are the purchasers of the subject matter of the suit from the respondents herein who claim to be the protected tenants. The respondents also filed separate similar suit and sought temporary injunction in the application filed by them claiming possession. ( 3 ) BRIEFLY, the facts are that one V. V. Prakash Reddy was a protected tenant and the respondents are his successors. There is no dispute about the tenancy and issuance of the protected tenancy certificate in favour of the said Prakash Reddy. The appellants claim that they have purchased the lands from the respondents and therefore, they are in possession and enjoyment of the same and in spite of the sale made by the respondents, they are trying to interfere with the same and taking steps to further alienate the very same property. Hence the suit and the injunction application. ( 4 ) THE claim of the respondents is that they being the protected tenants, the question of any alienation does not arise and therefore, any alienation is hit by the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 and therefore, no rights could be conferred in favour of the appellants. It is also denied on their behalf that there was any General Power of Attorney executed by them as claimed by the appellants herein for the purpose of execution of the sale deed in their favour. Initially, there was an injunction granted by the trial court in favour of the appellants herein, but no similar such order of injunction was granted in favour of the respondents. In the appeal, ultimately after contest, the court below dismissed the applications filed by the appellants herein and allowed the appeal of the respondents granting injunction in their favour. Initially, there was an injunction granted by the trial court in favour of the appellants herein, but no similar such order of injunction was granted in favour of the respondents. In the appeal, ultimately after contest, the court below dismissed the applications filed by the appellants herein and allowed the appeal of the respondents granting injunction in their favour. ( 5 ) SRI P. M. Gopal Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants strenuously contended by taking through the entire material on record to show that they have been in possession pursuant to the sale deeds executed by the respondents themselves and therefore, their possession needs to be protected. Hence they are entitled to injunction and the court below was not right in refusing to grant injunction in their favour and granted injunction in favour of the respondents. ( 6 ) SRI P. Venugopala Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that having regard to the fact that respondents are claiming through the protected tenancy, the question in respect of the alienation is not permissible and therefore, their possession needs to be protected. ( 7 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel on either side and also on a perusal of the record, the only question, which falls for consideration in these two matters, is as to whether which of the sides are entitled to injunction. Basically, there is no dispute about the protected tenancy in favour of the respondents ancestor Mr. V. V. Prakash Reddy in whose favour, the protected tenancy certificate was issued under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. According to the appellants, they have sold the said land through General Power of Attorney of which there is a total denial from the respondents side. Under the provisions of the aforesaid Act a beneficial legislation protected under the Schedule-IX of the Constitution of India, there cannot be any dispute about the larger protection afforded to them and the principles as already well settled as per the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in SADA V. TAHSILDAR, UTNOOR. ( 8 ) SINCE there is a clear prohibition of making any alienation in respect of the lands covered by the protected tenants, it was held by this court that any such alienation is illegal and would not confer any right. ( 8 ) SINCE there is a clear prohibition of making any alienation in respect of the lands covered by the protected tenants, it was held by this court that any such alienation is illegal and would not confer any right. Therefore, ultimately the result is that any alienation made by such protected tenants would not confer any right, title or interest as such and the rights as conferred, the protected tenants need to be protected. The court below has gone into the very same question and has held that the appellant s claim is wholly unsustainable and no right is created therein and they are not entitled to injunction. This court has initially granted interim suspension of the order of injunction granted in favour of the respondents herein as per orders in CMP No. 15656 of 2000 in CMA 2423 of 2000, dt. 29. 8. 2000 and final orders in C. M. P. No. 16861 of 2000 in C. M. P. No. 15656 of 2000 in the said appeal on 13. 10. 2000, against which, the appeal preferred by the appellants in L. P. A. No. 215 of 2000 was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court as per the orders dated 02-02-2001, by taking view of the findings given by the trial Court holding that the respondents are in possession. ( 9 ) HAVING considered the submissions made on either side in detail and having regard to the nature of the properties and the questions involved, it is more desirable that the main suits themselves have to be disposed of on merits rather than going into such questions at this interlocutory stage. In view of the same, both the appeals are disposed of directing the court below to take-up the trial of the suits and dispose of the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order and pending disposal of the suits thereof, the parties shall maintain status quo. No costs.