JUDGMENT Subhash B. Adi, J.—These two appeals are by the same parties. Appellant in both appeals is plaintiff in O.S. No. 9 of 2004 and defendant in O.S. No. 132 of 2003. R.F.A. No. 1636 of 2005 is against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 9 of 2004, dated 13th September, 2005 on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Doddaballapur. R.F.A. No. 1637 of 2005 is against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 132 of 2003, dated 13th September, 2005 on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Doddaballapur. 2. The Trial Court disposed of both the suits by common judgment and decree. Hence, the parties would be referred to as per their ranking in O.S. No. 9 of 2004. 3. Plaintiff in O.S. No. 9 of 2004 sought for decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, who was plaintiff in another suit, from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property bearing No. 186/2 measuring 1 acre 10 guntas situated at Rajaghatta Village, Kasaba Hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk, whereas, defendant, who filed another suit in O.S. No. 132 of 2003, he sought for decree of declaration, declaring that, he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property bearing Sy. No. 186/2 measuring 1 acre 27 guntas situated at Rajaghatta Village, Kasaba Hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk. 4. Plaintiffs case is that, late Patel Nanjappa was owning several properties. Out of Sy. No. 186/2 measuring 3 acres 20 guntas in a family partition dated 26-12-1967, plaintiffs father R.N. Nanjundappa got 2 acres 20 guntas and a khata of the land bearing Sy. No. 186/2 to the extent of 2 acres 20 guntas changed in the name of R.N. Nanjundappa by mutation Register No. 2217A of 1991. The children of R.N. Nanjundappa viz., plaintiff and his brother R.N. Satish got the said 2 acres 20 guntas divided by panchayat partition deed dated 26-4-2002 and the plaintiff got 1 acre 10 guntas as shown in the schedule. The defendant is related to the plaintiff. He has made an imaginary and false claim over the suit schedule property. On 8-3-2003 he tried to interfere towards the eastern portion of the schedule property, as such, plaintiff was constrained to file suit for bare injunction. 5. Whereas, defendant, who also filed another suit for declaration and injunction claimed that, Nanjappa was the owner of Sy. Nos. 186/2 and 187/1. Sy. On 8-3-2003 he tried to interfere towards the eastern portion of the schedule property, as such, plaintiff was constrained to file suit for bare injunction. 5. Whereas, defendant, who also filed another suit for declaration and injunction claimed that, Nanjappa was the owner of Sy. Nos. 186/2 and 187/1. Sy. No. 186/2 was measuring 3 acres 20 guntas. However, in an unregistered settlement dated 26-2-1967, only 1 acre 20 guntas was given to R.N. Nanjundappa and remaining extent was retained by his another brother Mruthyunjayappa. The western portion of Sy. No. 186/2 was allotted to Nanjappa, remaining land was retained by plaintiffs father i.e., Rajanna's father. After the death of Nanjappa, Mruthyunjayappa, who is also son, was cultivating the land and became absolute owner of the same. He executed the sale deed in favour of Rajanna to the extent of 1 acre. However, the defendant was in possession of the property to the extent of 1 acre 27 guntas and accordingly, he sought for declaration and injunction. 6. The Trial Court on appreciation of the evidence on record dismissed the suit in O.S. No. 9 of 2004 and decreed O.S. No. 132 of 2003 partly granting permanent injunction restraining the defendant (plaintiff) from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. As against the rejection of the suit and also decreeing the suit of the defendant, the plaintiff is in appeal. 7. Though arguments were advanced by both the Counsels at length, however, it is now submitted that, in respect of 1 acre land retained by Nanjappa out of Sy. No. 186/2, one Rachappa, son of Nanjappa filed a suit in O.S. No. 123 of 2004 for partition and separate possession and it is now submitted that, the said suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 19-7-2010 inter alia decreeing for 1/8th share of Rachappa in Sy. No. 186/2 measuring 1 acre. Further submitted that, the said judgment and decree is now in appeal before the District Court in R.A. No. 36 of 2010. 8. No. 186/2 measuring 1 acre. Further submitted that, the said judgment and decree is now in appeal before the District Court in R.A. No. 36 of 2010. 8. It is not in dispute that, the defendant claims under a registered sale deed stated to have been executed by Mruthyunjayappa and in the sale deed, the schedule is shown as under: 1 acre only of agricultural land, which is a portion of old Survey Number 186 now bearing Survey Number 186/2 and an extent of 2 acres in Sy. No. 187/1 both the lands are adjacent to each other, forming one compact unit situated at Rajaghatta Village, Kasaba Hobli, Doddaballapur Taluk and bounded on the: East by: land of Shivakumar sold to purchaser; West by: Purchaser's land and R.N. Nanjundappa's land; North by: Somapura-Chikkaballapura Government Road; South by: R.S. Shivarudrappa's and others' land. 9. Now this sale deed contains Sy. Nos. 186/2 and 187/1, the extent of land purchased by defendant is only 1 acre. However, in the schedule to the plaint in O.S. No. 132 of 2003, the plaintiff has claimed 1 acre 27 guntas. He claimed 1 acre 27 guntas in Sy. No. 186/2 with boundaries East by: Land bearing Sy. No. 186/1; West by: Kathali Beli existing in defendant's property; North by: Road; South by: land bearing Sy. No. 187/1. This schedule does not tally with the schedule shown in sale deed-Ex. D. 11 under which the defendant has purchased the property. There is also dispute as to whether Mruthyunjayappa had any right, title and interest to transfer 1 acre of land sold in favour of the defendant and the suit now filed by one Rachappa has been decreed in respect of said 1 acre holding that, it was a property of Nanjappa and all the children of Nanjappa had the share. 10. In view of the above circumstances, learned Counsel for the defendant submits that, though in the suit defendant has claimed 1 acre 27 guntas, however, defendant will confine his claim to 1 acre as shown in the schedule to the sale deed and also it would be subject to final decree that would be drawn in O.S. No. 123 of 2004. 11. 11. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the plaintiff submits that, the defendant has no right, title and interest, however, the suit schedule property in view of the decree for partition in a suit filed by Rachappa, defendant will not get more than 6 guntas of land i.e., share of Mruthyunjayappa and submitted that, he cannot remain in possession more than 6 guntas. 12. However, facts remains that the defendant has been in possession of 1 acre as per the sale deed. Now the suit for partition has been decreed till final decree is drawn, the defendant cannot be dispossessed from the land and at the same time, plaintiff has succeeded to show that Nanjappa in a partition of 1967 had given 2 acres 20 guntas to Nanjundappa and plaintiff and plaintiffs brother got divided the said property i.e., 1 acre 10 guntas each, as such, the plaintiff is entitled for a decree to the extent of 1 acre 10 guntas excluding the land measuring 1 acre of the defendant as shown in the schedule to Ex. D. 11. 13. Both the Counsels submit that, the injunction in favour of defendant be confined to 1 acre as shown in the schedule to Ex. D. 11 and for the remaining area, plaintiff be given a decree of permanent injunction and the injunction granted in favour of defendant would be operative till final decree proceedings in O.S. No. 123 of 2004. In view of these circumstances and the evidence on record, I find that the common judgment and decree in O.S. Nos. 9 of 2004 and 132 of 2003 is required to be modified. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER O.S. No. 9 of 2004 is decreed. Plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction in respect of Sy. No. 186/2 excluding the portion of 1 acre as per schedule to Ex. D. 11-sale deed inter alia: SCHEDULE An extent of 1 acre only of agricultural land, which is a portion of old Survey Number 186 now bearing Survey Number 186/2 and an extent of 2 acres in Sy. No. 186/2 excluding the portion of 1 acre as per schedule to Ex. D. 11-sale deed inter alia: SCHEDULE An extent of 1 acre only of agricultural land, which is a portion of old Survey Number 186 now bearing Survey Number 186/2 and an extent of 2 acres in Sy. No. 187/1 both the lands are adjacent to each other, forming one compact unit, situated at Rajaghatta Village, Kasaba Hobli, Doddaballapur Taluk and bounded on the: East by: land of Shivakumar sold to purchaser and Shanbhog Shamanna's land, presently owned by Gomenahalli Sabi; West by: Purchaser's land and R.N. Nanjundappa's land; North by: Somapura-Chikkaballapura Government Road; South by: R.S. Shivarudrappa's and others' land. In case the plaintiff finds that the defendant is in possession of more than 1 acre, it is open to the plaintiff to get the land surveyed and fix the boundaries to the extent of 1 acre as per Ex. D. 11 and for the remaining extent of land is concerned, plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction. The decree of permanent injunction in favour of the defendant is subject to final decree in O.S. No. 123 of 2004. Accordingly, both the appeals stand disposed of.