JUDGMENT : T. Vinod Kumar, J. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order dated. 21.12.2021 in 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 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 of 2021 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, since, 2001 respondent No.1 has been in continuous possession of the entire Suit schedule property, including the industrial sheds, machinery, and other movable assets by virtue of lease deed dated 13.06.2001 executedby respondents No.2 and 3 in favour of respondent No.1, which was subsequently renewed from time to time. 9. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 contend that, since, 2001 respondent No.1 has been in continuous possession of the entire Suit schedule property, including the industrial sheds, machinery, and other movable assets by virtue of lease deed dated 13.06.2001 executedby respondents No.2 and 3 in favour of respondent No.1, which was subsequently renewed from time to time. 9. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 contend that, the appellants made attempts to unlawfully interfere with their peaceful possession of the schedule property on 17.08.2021, 27.08.2021, and 28.08.2021, with the help of anti-social elements, vehicles, and earthmovers with the intent to cause damage, and the said attempts were resisted with the assistance of security personnel, labourers, and local residents, and complaints were lodged with the police, that thereafter the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had filed Suit vide O.S. No. 158 of 2001 for granting perpetual injunction against the appellants. The trial court by considering the documents and title and long possession had granted temporary injunction in favour of the respondents/petitioners dt. 21.12.2021 in I.A. No. 758 of 2021 in O.S. No. 158 of 2001. 10. The respondents 1 to 3 contended that, Respondents No.4 and 5, in violation of a status quo order passed by the Hon’ble High Court in CRP Nos.2895 of 2003 and 2901 of 2003 dated 18.01.2005, unlawfully executed sale deeds dated 21.03.2020 &06.04.2021 respectively in favour of appellants in respect of the suit schedule property; that appellants and Respondents No.4 to 6 acted in collusion and instituted O.S. No.533/2021 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Medchal and obtained an ad-interim injunction in I.A. No.1507/2021 by suppressing the material facts. 11. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 further contended that the schedule A and B properties forming the subject matter of the suit vide O.S. No. 158 of 2021 are distinct and separate from the properties claimed by the appellants in O.S. No. 533 of 2021 as the appellants assert rights only to an extent of Ac.2-38 guntas in Survey No.859. 12. The trial Court vide order dated. 21.12 2021 has granted temporary injunction in favour of respondent nos. 1 to 3 and against the appellants. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the trial Court, the Appellants/respondent No. 1 and 2 had filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 13. Heard Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee, learned Senior counsel for Sri S. Lakshmi Kanth, learned Counsel for the Appellants and Sri Sunil. 1 to 3 and against the appellants. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the trial Court, the Appellants/respondent No. 1 and 2 had filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 13. Heard Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee, learned Senior counsel for Sri S. Lakshmi Kanth, learned Counsel for the Appellants and Sri Sunil. B. Ganu, learned Senior counsel for Respondents, and perused the record. 14. It is vehemently contended on behalf of the Appellants that the trial Court has erred in granting injunction against the appellants and in favour of respondents inasmuch as an injunction order is subsisting and the said fact was not considered. 15. The appellants further contend that it is well-settled legal principle that grant of temporary injunction is a discretionary and equitable remedy. For such relief to be granted, the respondents must establish prima facie case, and the balance of convenience lies in their favour, and demonstrate that they would suffer irreparable injury that cannot be compensated by monetary damages, if the injunction is not granted, and that the trial Court has erred in granting injunction without recording any reasons and even without establishing prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. 16. The appellants further contend that, the trial Court erred in granting injunction against the appellants, who are the true owners of the suit schedule properties and that the trial Court ought to have directed the parties to maintain status-quo, rather than granting an injunction by considering the pending title disputes between the parties before various courts. 17. The appellants contend that, the trial Court has erred in granting injunction in I.A. No. 758 of 2021 in O.S. No. 158 of 2021 inasmuch as ad-interim injunction is subsisting in I.A. No. 1502 of 2021 in O.S. No. 533 of 2021 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, at Medchal, in favour of appellants, and that in view of subsistence of said injunction order, the injunction order passed in I.A. No. 758 of 2021 in O.S. No. 158 of 2021 is in violation of the doctrine of amity and comity. In support of his contention’s, reliance is placed on the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court viz., India Household and Healthcare Ltd. V. LG Household and Healthcare Ltd. , [ (2007) 5 SCC 510 ] and Shankara Coop. Housing Society Ltd. V. M. Prabhakar , [ (2011) 5 SCC 607 ] 18. In support of his contention’s, reliance is placed on the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court viz., India Household and Healthcare Ltd. V. LG Household and Healthcare Ltd. , [ (2007) 5 SCC 510 ] and Shankara Coop. Housing Society Ltd. V. M. Prabhakar , [ (2011) 5 SCC 607 ] 18. By contending as above, appellants sought for setting aside the order of the trial Court in granting the temporary injunction vide order dated. 21.12.2021. 19. Per contra, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 contend that as per the doctrine of amity and comity, a court cannot pass an order which would be in conflict with another order passed by a competent Court of law and it requires the court of concurrent jurisdiction to pass similar orders. Both the said orders are not concurrent inasmuch the ad-interim injunction passed in I.A. No. 1502 of 2021 in O.S. No. 533 of 2021 was passed till 27.08.2021. The temporary injunction granted in I.A. No. 758 of 2021 in O.S. No. 158 of 2021 is dated. 21.12.2021. 20. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 contend that both the interim orders are not in relation to the same property, as in I.A. No. 1502 of 2021 in O.S. No. 533 of 2021 the trial court has granted an ad-interim injunction in relation to schedule A & B properties in Sy. No. 859/part to an extent of Ac. 0-38 guntas and in Sy.No. 859 to an extent of Ac. 2-00 guntas situated at Medchal Malkajgiri, while the temporary injunction granted vide order dt.21.12.2021 in I.A. No. 758 of 2021 in O.S. No. 158 of 2021 is in relation with the Petition schedule ‘B’ property in Sy.No. 859 to an extent of Ac. 3-00 guntas situated at Medchal, Ranga Reddy. 21. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 further contend that the trial court has rightly allowed the interlocutory application and granted temporary injunction in favour of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, in view of the existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience in favour of the respondents and irreparable injury/loss. 22. We have taken note of respective contentions urged. 23. 1 to 3 further contend that the trial court has rightly allowed the interlocutory application and granted temporary injunction in favour of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, in view of the existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience in favour of the respondents and irreparable injury/loss. 22. We have taken note of respective contentions urged. 23. It is pertinent to note that the trial Court, considering the submissions made by both the counsels had framed a point for determination as: “Whether the petitioners have shown sufficient grounds for grant of temporary injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioners over petition schedule B property, as prayed for?” 24. Considering the fact that the trial Court upon perusal of the material evidence produced in support of the case, observed that the respondent nos. 1 to 3 have clearly established their right and possession over the petition schedule ‘B’ property and also their continuous possession from 2001 by running Srinath Spinners Pvt. Ltd., thus, prima facie case and balance of convenience is in their favour and greater inconvenience would be caused to them rather than appellants if injunction is not granted. 25. It is also pertinent to note that I.A. No. 1502 of 2021 in O.S. No. 533 of 2021 an ad-interim injunction order granted is only till 27.08.2021 and no document/order is filed showing the said order was extended further. On the other hand, the temporary injunction was granted in I.A. No. 758 of 2021 in O.S. No. 158 of 2021 vide order dt.21.12.2021. Thus, it evident that as on 21.12.2021 the ad-interim injunction order granted in I.A. No. 1502 of 2021 in O.S. No. 533 was not subsisting. 26. Considering that ad-interim injunction order granted in I.A. No. 1502 of 2021 in O.S. No. 533 was not subsisting, there is no legal bar preventing the XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Additional Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at Malkajgiri from granting the temporary injunction in I.A. No. 758 of 2021 in O.S. No. 158 of 2021. Thus, in the considered view of this Court, the contention of the Appellants that there is violation of doctrine of Amity and Comity does not apply. 27. Thus, in the considered view of this Court, the contention of the Appellants that there is violation of doctrine of Amity and Comity does not apply. 27. It is further relevant to note that though the appellants contended that the order in I.A. No. 1502 of 2021 in O.S. No. 533 was subsisting, they did not raise any objection before the XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Additional Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at Malkajgiri regarding the same. Considering the issue, the appellants could have sought for the clubbing of the suits in order to address the potential overlap or conflict between the proceedings. 28. It is also pertinent to note that though the appellants contend that the trial court failed to appreciate that, the title to property cannot be passed on through the sale deed executed by the GPA holder of person prior to issuance of section 38-E certificate under the provisions of the Tenancy Act, contrary to the above, the appellants in the counter filed by them in I.A. No. 758 of 2021 in O.S. No. 158 of 2021have stated that one Smt. Balamani had acquired title over the property through the certificate u/s. 38-E of the Act and was confirmed by the RDO. Thus, this Court is of the view that the appellant cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate. 29. It is further pertinent to note that the trial court had categorically recorded the reasons and clearly held that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 have established prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss in their favour. 30. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the view that the order of trial Court does not suffer from infirmity or perversity warranting interference by this Court. 31. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fails and is dismissed. 32. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed. No order as to costs.