Plaintiff cannot suppress material facts from court.

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 p