Judgment 1. Plaintiff is the appellant. 2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows: The suit property belongs to Abishega Kattalai attached to Sri Thiagarajaswami Devasthanam. It was grant of inam to the plaintiff in Pavadi thope village for the service to the plaintiff temple. The first defendant claims to be a lessee of the site under the devasthanam, under an agreement entered into between him and the then Executive Officer of the temple on 9.11.1959. The document dated 4.6.1967 is not a lease at all. It is only a permission to the predecessors of the first defendant to dig up a tank on a very small extent in the suit land. That document was in continuation of the previous agreement. No coconut trees were planted and the property remains fallow. The first defendant intends to put the remaining space of his private use. There is lease to the first defendant and no lease for building purposes and the defendant has no permanent right over the suit property and he cannot put up permanent construction. The defendant cannot claim the property for a rent of Rs.720 per month. The defendant is attempting to put up a fresh building with a view to derive more rental income. The first defendant is deriving a rent of Rs.1,200 per month from the State Bank of India. The first defendant died and defendants 2 to 5 are added as defendants 2 to 5 as his legal representatives. 3. The case of the defendants is as follows: The document dated 9.11.1959 executed between the plaintiff and the first defendant only recognised the pre-existing right of this defendant and his predecessors-in-interest the said right of permanent tenancy. This document was executed after obtaining a competent legal advice and after consideration of the document dated 4.6.1967 and 13.6.1881. Those documents are long prior to enactments regarding religious endowments and also before the enactment of the Transfer of Property Act. The defendant and his predecessors have been in possession and enjoyment of the entire suit property for more than 100 years with permanent tenancy right in the site. This defendant put up construction for housing the State Bank of India and leased out the building to the State Bank of India. The defendant has spent huge amount and the plaintiff never objected to that. So, the plaintiff is estopped from asking demolition of the new building. This defendant put up construction for housing the State Bank of India and leased out the building to the State Bank of India. The defendant has spent huge amount and the plaintiff never objected to that. So, the plaintiff is estopped from asking demolition of the new building. The suit is not maintainable. The plaintiff demanded higher rent and the defendant did not agree and so the plaintiff filed the suit. 4. The suit was dismissed by the trial court. On appeal, the judgment and decree of the trial court was confirmed. 5. On that, the plaintiff has preferred the present second appeal. 6. The following are the substantial questions of law that were framed at the time of admission of the second appeal: (i)Whether the lease agreement executed by the Executive Officer dated 9.11.1959 is hit by Sec.34 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. and (ii)Whether the respondents can claim any right in view of Ex.A-4, the orders passed by the Settlement Officer. 7. The suit property belongs to the plaintiff. The first defendant claims to be the permanent lessee of the site under the Devasthanam pursuant to an agreement dated 9.11.1959 entered into between himself and the then executive officer of the temple. He contends that the agreement only recognised the pre-existing right of himself and his predecessors in interest and it was executed only after obtaining competent legal advice and after considering the documents dated 4.6.1867 and 13.6.1981 which are long prior to enactments regarding religious endowments and also before the enactment of the Transfer of Property Act. He further contends that the entire suit property has been in possession of himself and his predecessors-in-interest for more than 100 years with permanent tenancy right in the site and he has put up construction for housing the State Bank of India and leased out the building to them and so, the plaintiff cannot seek for permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendants. 8. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that any lease for immovable property executed without the sanction of the Commissioner is hit by Sec.34 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act and as the lease agreement dated 9.11.1959 Ex.A-1 was executed without such sanction, it is void and so, the lease in favour of the defendant cannot be held to be valid and the plaintiff is entitled or the injunction asked for. 9. Counsel for the respondents submitted that Ex.A-1 is not a lease deed and it is only an agreement and no power is also prescribed under that document and as the document is not a lease deed, it is not hit by Sec.34 of the Act. Sec.34 of the Act reads thus, “Any exchange sale or mortgage and any lease for a term exceeding five years of any immovable property belonging to, or given or endowed for the purposes of, any religious institution shall be null and void unless it is sanctioned by the Temple Administration Board as being necessary or beneficial to the institution.” Ex.A-1 is a registration copy of the agreement entered on 9.11.1959 between V.S.Thiyagaraja Mudaliar and the Executive Officer of Thiyagarajaswamy Devasthanam, Tiruvarur. It is stated therein that the suit property belongs to Abishega Kattalai, attached to Devasthanam and it was taken on lease by the predecessors in interest of the first defendant by documents dated 4.6.1867 and 13.6.1881 with a view to dig up a tank for public use and the first defendant constructed a big well instead in a portion of the site with platform all round which amply serves the purpose for which it was originally intended and the first defendant is entitled to put the remaining site for his private use undertaking to pay the enhanced rent to the said Abishega Kattalai at Rs.720 per annum for the entire site and the first defendant had agreed to pay every year commencing from 1.11.1959 at the rate of Rs.720 a year as rent for the suit premises the first payment having been made on that day in advance and the rents for succeeding years to be paid on or before 1st November every year. So, it is evident from Ex.A-1 that in pursuance of the prior agreements, Ex.A-1 agreement was entered into. It is not styled as a lease deed. It is only an agreement. No mention is also made in the document as lease for specific period. Exs.A-2 and A-3 are also styled as agreements only. They are of the year 1887 and 1881, in pursuance of which Ex.A-1 was executed. The purpose for which the agreement was entered into was to dig up a tank in that site and the first defendant constructed a big well in that site. Exs.A-2 and A-3 are also styled as agreements only. They are of the year 1887 and 1881, in pursuance of which Ex.A-1 was executed. The purpose for which the agreement was entered into was to dig up a tank in that site and the first defendant constructed a big well in that site. Under Ex.A-1, the first defendant has to pay rent at Rs.720 every year commencing from 1.11.1959 and the rent for succeeding years had to be paid on first November of every year. 10. Relying upon the terms under Ex.A-1, the defendant contends that there is permanent lease and as per that agreement, the defendants are entitled to be in possession and the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief asked for. Counsel for the defendants also submitted that documents A-2 and A-3 have granted permanent tenancy rights in the suit site and the defendants predecessors were in possession of the suit property for digging up a tank by them and the defendants were treated only as tenants by the appellant. Relying upon the terms of Exs.A-1 to A-3 counsel for the defendants submitted that these documents are only agreements entered into between the plaintiff and the first defendant granting perpetual lease and they do not amount to lease and only in pursuance of those agreements, the defendants are in possession and so, sanction from the H.R. & C.E. Department does not arise at all. He further pointed out that Exs.A-2 and A-3 were executed prior to the enactment of the H.R. & C.E. Act and the Transfer of Property Act and Ex.A-1 is in pursuance of Exs.A-2 and A-3 and so, sanction under Sec.34 does not arise at all. 11. On a perusal of Ex.A-1 it is seen that it was executed in 1959. If that document was created in pursuance of Exs.A-2 and A-3 which were prior to the enactment, the terms and conditions mentioned in Ex.A-1 go to establish that only a lease has been created between the plaintiff and the first defendant. 11. On a perusal of Ex.A-1 it is seen that it was executed in 1959. If that document was created in pursuance of Exs.A-2 and A-3 which were prior to the enactment, the terms and conditions mentioned in Ex.A-1 go to establish that only a lease has been created between the plaintiff and the first defendant. Sec.105 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 reads thus, “A lease of immovable property is a transfer of a right to enjoy such property, made for a certain time, express or implied, or in perpetuity, in consideration of a price paid or promised, or of money, a share of crops, service or any other thing of value, to be rendered periodically or an specified occasions to the transferor by the transferee, who accepts the transfer on such terms.” So, as per Sec.105 of the Act, a lease of immovable property can be created in perpetuity. Under Ex.A1, lease is created in perpetuity and the lease amount is also agreed to be paid annually. In pursuance of such lease, the defendant has put up construction and has housed the State Bank of India. Exs.A1 to A3 prove that permanent lease was granted. It is significant to note that when the lease was granted, the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act was not in force. Even Ex.A.1 was also executed prior to coming into force of that Act. So none of the Provisions of the H.R. & C.E. Act applies to the instant case; At on stretch of imagination it can be stated that Ex.A-1 is a void document. Sec.34 of Act 22 of 1959 is not applicable to the lease in the instant case. 12. Counsel for the appellant further contends that the settlement officer has already passed an order under Ex.A-4 and order of the Settlement Tahsildar is that patta will be issued in the name of the claimants, the Devasthanam. The Settlement Tahsildar has also passed order that the superstructure over the suit property will vest with the respondent, the tenant. So, the Settlement Tahsildar had also passed order that the superstructure will vest with the respondent, the tenant. The defendants being the tenant is the owner of the superstructure. The first defendant has put up the construction at the huge cost and the building has been let out to the State Bank of India. So, the Settlement Tahsildar had also passed order that the superstructure will vest with the respondent, the tenant. The defendants being the tenant is the owner of the superstructure. The first defendant has put up the construction at the huge cost and the building has been let out to the State Bank of India. The documents produced reveal that perpetual lease has been granted in favour of the first defendant. Defendants 2 to 5 are added as legal representatives of the first defendant on the death of the first defendant. The first defendant has also obtained licence from the Tiruvarur Municipality and has put up construction. The defendants being the lessee of the suit property are entitled to be in possession of the suit property, on payment of annual rent of Rs.720. Both the courts below have correctly found and dismissed the suit. The reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the courts below do not warrant any interference. In the result, the second appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.