JUDGMENT Miss Kamlesh Sharma, J.—This appeal is directed against the decree and judgment dated 30-9-1988 passed by the Additional District Judge, Mandi, Kullu and Lahaul and Spiti Districts at Mandi, whereby the appeal of the appellant defendant was dismissed and the decree and judgment dated 31-1-1985 of Sub-Judge (2), Mandi, District Mandi, was affirmed, The Sub-Judge had decreed the suit of the respondent-plaintiff for possession of land measuring 200-57 Square meters comprised in Khasra No 27 situated in Mohal Paddal, Mandi town (hereinafter called "the land in dispute"). 2. The respondent-plaintiff, Samadh Chuni Muni is a temple where an idol of Shivlinga of Lord Shiva is worshipped by the people. It is the owner of the land in dispute being managed by its Shebaits, namely, Moti Ram and others. 3. While decreeing the suit of the respondent plaintiff, both the Courts below have concurrently rejected the defence of the appellant defendant that he was inducted as tenant at an annual rent of Rs. 6/by one of the Shebaits namely, Sunki, by Agreement dated 15-11-1966, Ex PW 2-A, since when he has been continuing in possession and has acquired proprietary rights after the coming into force of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter called “the Act"). 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant defendant has attacked the concurrent findings of fact that the lease deed Ex. PW 2-A was not a valid and legal document creating tenancy in favour of the appellant-defendant as it was not proved by producing one of the marginal witnesses ; it was not signed by lessor or the lessee and it was not registered under section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. Another point has been raised that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate that the appellant-defendant is entitled to acquisition of proprietary rights under section 104 of the Act 5. In the opinion of this Court, these points have been raised to be rejected Both the Courts below have rightly held the lease deed Ex. PW 2-A to be illegal, invalid and incapable of creating tenancy rights in favour of the appellant defendant, entitling him to acquisition of proprietary rights of the land in dispute under section 104 of the Act. PW 2-A to be illegal, invalid and incapable of creating tenancy rights in favour of the appellant defendant, entitling him to acquisition of proprietary rights of the land in dispute under section 104 of the Act. The Court has examined the document, Ex PW 2-A, to find that the land in dispute was given to the appellant-defendant for agricultural purposes but be was also entitled to construct a house thereon and since no period of lease was fixed, it can be construed as permanent lease It suffers from the following infirmities, as rightly pointed out by the Courts below :— (i) Admittedly there were three Shebaits, namely, Surju, Swaru and Sunki at the relevant time but only one of them, namely, Sunki, has executed the deed, Ex PW 2-A, and there is nothing on the record to show that she was authorized to do so on behalf of the other two Shebaits ; (ii) Admittedly, the lease is of immovable property for an indefinite period, which could be made only by a registered instrument as provided under section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act However, it was not compulsorily registerable under section 17 of the Registration Act as this Act was not extended to the then State of Himachal Pradesh as shown by the learned Counsel for the appellant-defendant from the Himachal Pradesh (Application of Laws Order), 1948. The said Act was enforced later on by the Registration Act (Himachal Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1968 with effect from 9-12-1968. (iii) Admittedly the respondent-plaintiff is a Hindu idol, a permanent lease of its property could not be created without legal necessity, as provided in Para 415 of Hindu Law by Mulla, wherein it is provided that as a general rule of Hindu Law, property given for the maintenance of religious worship, and of charities connected with it, is inalienable, though the Shebait or Mahant incharge of the property can incur debts and borrow money on a mortgage of the property for the purpose of keeping up the religious worship and for the benefit and preservation of the property. Except for legal necessity, he cannot grant a permanent lease debutter property, though he may create proper derivatives tenures and estates conformable to usage. Except for legal necessity, he cannot grant a permanent lease debutter property, though he may create proper derivatives tenures and estates conformable to usage. In Atyam Veeraju and others v. Pechetti Venkanna and others, AIR 1966 SC 629, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, has also held that the Manager of the temple has no authority to grant permanent lease of the temple at a fixed rent without any legal necessity and had he granted such a lease, it would have endured for the tenure of his office only. But he has ample power in the course of management to grant a lease from year to year. (iv) Admittedly, the lease deed is signed by two marginal witnesses , but neither of them has been produced to prove it though its scribe, Badri (PW 2), has come forward to state that it was executed by Sunki. 6. Therefore, in view of these infirmities, both Courts below have rightly rejected the lease deed Ex. PW 2-A to bold that the appellant-defendant has no right, title and interest over the land in .-dispute and he is liable to hand over its possession to the respondent plaintiff. 7. In result, this Court does not find any merit in this appeal and it is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.