J. ESWARA PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) PLAINTIFFS in Original Suit No. 379 of 1980 in the Court of the principal Munsiff, Kolar are the appellants. They filed the suit for declaration of their title to the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants-respondents from interfering with their possession. ( 2 ) THE suit was resisted by the defendants, contending that the plaint schedule property was sold to the minor son of the 1st defendant by virtue of the sale deed dated 3-1-1978 and that the appellants have no title to the suit property and that the 1st respondent is in possession from the date of the sale. The defendants contended that the suit is filed in order to defeat the rights of the minor son of the 1st respondent. ( 3 ) THE Trial Court disallowed the claim for declaration of title,but decreed the suit in part by granting permanent injunction, restraining the respondents, holding that the appellants are in possession of the plaint schedule property on the date of the suit. On appeal by the respondents, the Principal Civil Judge, Kolar allowed Regular Appeal No. 41 of 1986 set aside the permanent injunction against the defendants and dismissed the suit. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellants contended that the Appellate Court having not disagreed with the finding of the trial Court that the appellants are in possession of the plaint schedule land, ought not to have rejected the claim of the appellants in toto and ought to have granted an injunction, restraining the respondents from evicting the appellants, except with due process of law. He further contended that the learned judge was also in error in holding that the suit is bad for non-joinder of the minor son of the 1st respondent inasmuch as he was not a necessary party to the suit. The further contention of the learned Counsel is that there was no suppression of any material facts by the appellants and no relief was claimed against the minor son of the 1st respondent. ( 5 ) TAKING the last contention of the appellants first, it has to be held that the suit was dismissed solely on the ground that equitable relief of injunction cannot be claimed by the plaintiff, who has not come to the Court with clean hands. ( 5 ) TAKING the last contention of the appellants first, it has to be held that the suit was dismissed solely on the ground that equitable relief of injunction cannot be claimed by the plaintiff, who has not come to the Court with clean hands. It was in the knowledge of the appellants that the suit property was sold to the minor son of the 1st respondent. The title to the suit property vested in the minor, who is the real owner, as correctly held by both the Courts. The minor son is under the guardianship of the 1st respondent, who was necessarily put in possession of the suit property on behalf of his minor son. The possession of the guardian will be the possession of the minor. It is therefore clear that the appellants sought to restrain the guardian, who is entitled to be in possession of the suit property on behalf of his minor son, who is the real owner. Virtually, the suit can be said to be for obtaining an injunction indirectly against the real owner. The appellants who have sought such a relief, should have revealed the facts, suppression of facts disentitled them from obtaining the declaration from the hands of the Court. Therefore, the learned Judge was correct in holding that the appellants who have not come to the Court with clean hands, are not entitled to the relief of injunction. ( 6 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellants placed reliance in Ram Rattan and Others v State of Uttar Pradesh. That was a case arising under Sections 97 and 99 of the Indian Penal Code. In that case it was observed by the Supreme Court that it was well - settled that a true owner has every right to dispossess or throw out a trespasser, while the trespasser is in the act or process of trespassing, and has not accomplished his possession, but this right is not available to the true owner, if the trespasser has been successful in accomplishing his possession to the knowledge of the true owner. In such circumstances, the law requires that the true owner should dispossess the trespasser by taking recourse to the remedies available under the law. In such circumstances, the law requires that the true owner should dispossess the trespasser by taking recourse to the remedies available under the law. In the facts of that case, where the accused inflicted serious injuries, some of which were inflicted by sharp cutting weapons, it was held that such a remedy is not available to the accused, even though the complainant has got into the property by trespassing into it. It is pertinent to note that the Supreme Court observed as follows :". . . we agree with the finding of the High Court that the accused are not entitled to claim the right of private defence, nor can it be said that in causing the murderous assault on the deceased they had merely exceeded their right of private defence of property". It is therefore clear that the mode of evicting the trespasser was the only issue before the Supreme Court and Supreme Court did not accept the claim of the accused that they had a right of private defence to the extent of causing grievous injuries to the complainant. ( 7 ) THE learned Counsel nextly relied on C. Bhaskar v State of Karnataka and Another, in support of his contention that the very person in settled possession cannot be dispossessed even by the owner, otherwise than by proceeding in accordance with the procedure established by law. He contends that the appellants cannot be forceably dispossessed, even if their possession is unlawful. It is to be noted that injunction is a discretionary relief, which can be refused against the plaintiff when he comes to the Court with unclean hands. Even the limited relief of permanent injunction granted by the Trial Court is liable to be set aside when the plaintiffs have not come to the Court with clean hands. As I agree with the learned Judge that the plaintiffs have not approached the Court with clean hands, they are not entitled to any relief at the hands of the Court. ( 8 ) FOR all the above reasons, the appeal fails and it is dismissed. No costs. --- *** --- .