Judgment :- The plaintiff, who succeeded before the trial Court, but lost his case before the first Appellate Court, is the appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff') in this Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit against the respondent Temple (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendant') for permanent injunction that his possession as a cultivating tenant in respect of the suit property should not be disturbed till such time he is evicted by due process of law. The suit property is 3.78 Acres punja land in Survey No.32, No.92, Muthialpet Village, Wallajabad Union, Kancheepuram Taluk. 3. As per the amended plaint, the case of the plaintiff is that he is a lessee of the suit property under the defendant Temple as per the Lease Deed entered into between him and one D.N.Subbarayalu Chettiar, the then Trustee of the Temple. The Lease Deed dated 05.4.1978 is for a period of ten years. The plaintiff is to pay cash of Rs.50/- per year for the first five years and then at the rate of Rs.200/- per year for the remaining five years as per the terms of the Lease Deed. On the death of Subbarayalu Chettiar, his son, Jayaraman, who is the present Trustee of the temple, is collecting the kuthagai from the plaintiff and also made endorsement for the kuthagai amount on the back of the Lease Deed. As such, the plaintiff is the cultivating tenant and is entitled to the benefit of Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants' Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The plaintiff is entitled to be in possession of the suit property as cultivating tenant till such time he is evicted by due process of law. An attempt was made for evicting the plaintiff from the suit property in the year 1989, which was resisted and apprehending that the plaintiff will be forcibly evicted, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking the above stated relief. 4. The suit was resisted in the written statement filed by the defendant denying that the plaintiff is a lessee of the suit property belonging to the defendant Temple as per the Lease Deed and further denying the execution of Lease Deed on 05.4.1978 for a period of ten years entered into between the plaintiff and D.N.Subbarayalu Chettiar, the then Trustee of the Temple and also denying the lease amount payable as stated in the plaint. It is further denied that the present trustee of the Temple has been collecting the kuthagai amount from the plaintiff. In any event, the lease was intended to be only for one year i.e., 1978 only and thereafter, the plaintiff was allowed to be in possession of the suit property only as an agent of the then trustee, D.N.Subbarayalu Chettiar and the permission granted by the then trustee also became terminated immediately after his death and the possession of the suit property by the plaintiff is illegal. A portion of the suit land, namely, 6 cents was sold to one Mohan in which sale deed, the plaintiff is an attestor. An extent of 20 cents in the suit property was acquired by the Government for Harijan Welfare. There is a tank in an extent of 60 cents and the same has been obliterated and destroyed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff, being only a licensee, on the death of the then trustee and father of the present trustee got terminated on the death of the then trustee and as such, the suit for injunction against the original owner will not lie. It is also stated that the plaintiff has also not been recognised as cultivating tenant in the village records. 5. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.10 before the trial Court and as against the evidence let in on the side of the plaintiff, the defendant Temple examined the present trustee of the temple Jayaraman and one Ramayya Chetty as D.Ws.1 and 2 respectively and marked Exs.B.1 to B.9. The report and plan of the Advocate Commissioner have been marked as Exs.C.1 and C.2 respectively. The trial Court, considering such evidence let in on both sides and in answering the issue, recorded finding that the plaintiff has proved his case that he is in possession of the suit property as a cultivating tenant and in that view, decreed the suit for permanent injunction as sought for by the plaintiff and also found that his possession should not be disturbed till such time he is evicted by due process of law. The said judgment was challenged by the defendant temple. In the first Appellate Court, Ex.B-10 dated 21.7.1985 an affidavit executed by the plaintiff has been marked. The said judgment was challenged by the defendant temple. In the first Appellate Court, Ex.B-10 dated 21.7.1985 an affidavit executed by the plaintiff has been marked. The first Appellate Court, while reversing the finding of the trial Court, recorded finding that the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and suppressed the facts of sale of 6 cents to one Mohan under Ex.B.1 in which he is an attestor and also about the acquisition of 20 cents of land in the suit property by the Government for Harijan Welfare and as such, the plaintiff is not entitled for a decree of permanent injunction as sought for by him to the entire extent of 3.78 Acres and accordingly, allowed the appeal preferred by the defendant temple. Therefore, the plaintiff is before this Court by preferring Second Appeal. 6. At the time of admission of the Second Appeal, the following substantial questions of law were framed for consideration in S.A.No.240 of 1994:- (1) Whether the first Appellate Court can dismiss the suit for injunction without reversing the finding of the trial Court as to possession and nature of possession of the appellant in respect of the suit land? (2) whether the ground adverted to by the first Appellate Court namely that appellant had suppressed the surrender of a small portion of the suit land and the acquisition of another small portion of the land and therefore the suit is liable to be dismissed is sustainable both in law and on facts? 7. The plaintiff claims that he is a lessee of the entire extent of suit property 3.78 Acres punja land in Survey No.32, Muthialpet Village, Wallajabad Union, Kancheepuram Taluk and in such capacity he is cultivating the suit land. The fact that the plaintiff is the lessee of the suit property belonging to the defendant temple is not seriously disputed. The case of the defendant is that the plaintiff is only a licensee under the then Trustee of the temple, who is the father of the present Trustee, D.W.1 and was in possession of the suit property in such capacity. It is also stated that at the best, the lease is for a period of one year. The case of the defendant is that the plaintiff is only a licensee under the then Trustee of the temple, who is the father of the present Trustee, D.W.1 and was in possession of the suit property in such capacity. It is also stated that at the best, the lease is for a period of one year. The lease is entered into under Ex.A-1 dated 5.4.1978 between the plaintiff and the then Trustee Subbarayalu Chettiar, father of D.W.1 and as per the deed, the plaintiff became a lessee for the entire extent of suit property for a period of ten years agreeing to pay the lease amount of Rs.50/- per annum for the first five years and thereafter Rs.200/- per annum for the remaining period. As per the lease deed, Ex.A-1, the possession was also handed over to the plaintiff at the time of execution of the lease deed itself. The plaintiff had been paying the lease amount and which have been acknowledged by the then Trustee Subbarayalu Chettiar and also the present Trustee D.W.1 under Exs.A-2 to A-8. 8. The plaintiff filed the suit on 9.6.1989, the next Court working day after the registration of sale deed under Ex.B-1 dated 27.5.1989, as per which the defendant temple sold about 6 cents of land out of the entire extent of suit property to one Mohan in which the plaintiff is an attestor. It is also admitted by the plaintiff, P.W.1 in his evidence that 40 cents of land have been acquired by the Government for the purpose of Harijan Welfare to lay road. According to the defendant temple, there have been a tank in the suit property in 60 cents and the same has been obliterated and destroyed by the plaintiff. It is admitted by the plaintiff, P.W.1 that there was a tank only for about 15 cents and he has levelled the same four years before he gave evidence. According to the defendant temple, there have been a tank in the suit property in 60 cents and the same has been obliterated and destroyed by the plaintiff. It is admitted by the plaintiff, P.W.1 that there was a tank only for about 15 cents and he has levelled the same four years before he gave evidence. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim to have in possession of entire extent of suit property, in view of the facts, admittedly, under Ex.B-1 about 6 cents of land have been sold to one Mohan in which sale deed, the plaintiff has figured as an attestor; the Government acquired 40 cents of land in the suit property for Harijan Welfare for the purpose of laying road and under Ex.B-10 dated 21.7.1985, the plaintiff surrendered 5-1/2 cents of land in the suit property for convenient worship of the defendant temple by the public. As such, the plaintiff is not in possession of the entire extent of suit property and he is in possession of the suit property excepting the property conveyed under Ex.B-1, viz., 6 cents; 40 cents of land acquired by the Government for the Harijan Welfare to lay road and 5-1/2 cents surrendered by the plaintiff under Ex.B-10. The plaintiff suppressing all these facts has approached the Court without clean hands and as such he is to be non-suited. 9. It also appears that the plaintiff is not cultivating the suit property as it could be seen from the cultivating adangal extract Exs.B-4 and B-9 relating to faslis 1399 and 1401, in which the name of the cultivator is mentioned as defendant temple. Even assuming the plaintiff is cultivating the suit property, excepting the land sold under Ex.B-1, the land taken over by the Government for Harijan Welfare to lay road and 5-1/2 cents surrendered by the plaintiff under Ex.B-10, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief sought for, in view of the fact that he has not come to Court with clean hands as ruled by the Supreme Court in S.P.Chengalvarya Naidu – vs. - Jagannath reported in A.I.R. 1994 Supreme Court 853 relied on by the learned counsel for the defendant. In the said decision, the Supreme Court has held as follows:- "The Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the Court, must come with clean hands. In the said decision, the Supreme Court has held as follows:- "The Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the Court, must come with clean hands. It can be said without hesitation that a person whose case is based on falsehood has no right to approach the Court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. A litigant, who approaches the Court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the Court as well as on the opposite party." Therefore, the judgment of the first Appellate Court which is challenged in this appeal does not call for any interference and the said judgment in reversing the relief granted by the trial Court by decreeing the suit, requires no change. 10. In the light of the discussions made above, the Second Appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. The judgment dated 7.1.1994 made in A.S.No.9 of 1993 on the file of the Sub Court, Kancheepuram is confirmed.