Judgment :- 1. The Appellant/Plaintiff (Temple) has filed the present Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 28.01.1998 in A.S.No.36 of 1997 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Nagapattinam in reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 24.06.1996 in O.S.No.255 of 1995 passed by the Learned District Munsif, Nannilam. 2. The First Appellate Court, viz. the Learned Additional District Judge, Nagapattinam, while passing the Judgment in A.S.No.36 of 1997 on 28.01.1998, has opined that the lease of fishery right for the Fasli year 1404 was not at all enjoyed by Appellant/Defendant even after Ex.A2 dated 17.02.1995 and such fact was not communicated to the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Board. Such being the position, the Appellant's (Temple) claim in Second Appeal for the lease amount of Rs.13,000/- for the Fasli year 1404 from the Respondent/Defendant cannot be executed in any manner and further observed that no specific full fledged lease was granted to the Appellant/Defendant for the Fasli year 1404 by the Respondent/Plaintiff (Appellant/Temple) and he never enjoyed the same in any manner and consequently allowed the Appeal with costs, thereby setting aside the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court dated 24.06.1996 in O.S.No.255 of 1995. 3. Earlier, before the trial Court in the main Suit, witness P.W.1 has been examined and Exs.A1 to A7 have been marked. On the side of the Respondent/Defendant, witness D.W.1 has been examined and Ex.B1 has been marked. 4. The trial Court, on an appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, has come to a clear conclusion that in Ex.A2-Notice dated 17.02.1995, the leasehold fishery right of the Appellant/Plaintiff (Temple) has been given to the Respondent/Defendant and Ex.B1 dated 19.06.1990 has been marked on the side of the Respondent/Defendant to the effect that in the Suit Temple, the fishery leasehold right has been given to the Respondent/Defendant and finally held that for Fasli 1404, the Devasthanam Temple fishery leasehold right has been given to the Respondent/Defendant and that he is liable to pay the auction amount of Rs.13,000/-to the Appellant/Plaintiff (Temple) and granted a Decree as prayed for in the plaint in favour of the Temple along with costs. At the time of admission of the Second Appeal, this Court has formulated the following Substantial Questions of Law for consideration : (i) Whether the lower Appellate Court is right in law in its findings that there is no concluded contract between the parties in pursuance of the agreement to lease for the enjoyment of the fishery right for the suit period? ii) Whether the lower Appellate Court has erred in law in failing to note that the offer as per Ex.A1 has been validly accepted and acted upon by virtue of the Resolution in Ex.A7 and supported by the suit notices Exs.A2, A4 and A6, respectively ? The Contentions, Discussions and Findings on Substantial Questions of Law Nos. 1 and 2: 6. According to the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff (Temple), the First Appellate Court has failed to appreciate that the fishery right has been granted to the Respondent/Defendant on 7.12.1994 for Fasli year 1404 as per Ex.A7, Resolution of the Temple. 7. It is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff (Temple) that the First Appellate Court has not taken note of the fact that the approval of lease by the Deputy Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Endowment Board is only a formality which can be obtained after leasing out the tank. The stand of the Appellant/Plaintiff (Temple) is that the Respondent/Defendant cannot continue to enjoy the fishery right in the Temple tank without depositing the agreed lease amount of Rs.13,000/- for the period Fasli 1404. 9. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff (Temple) strenuously submits that the Respondent/Defendant has been enjoying the fishery rights from the year 1984 onwards continuously and in fact, Ex.A7-Resolution of the Temple conclusively establishes the factum of concluded contract between the parties and as such, it need not be supported by any independent, separate confirmation order. 10. Lastly, it is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff that the First Appellate Court has erred in awarding payment of costs at Rs.2,526/-, which is erroneous in law when there is a concluded contract between the parties. 11. 10. Lastly, it is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff that the First Appellate Court has erred in awarding payment of costs at Rs.2,526/-, which is erroneous in law when there is a concluded contract between the parties. 11. Per contra, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Defendant that the First Appellate Court has taken note of the evidence of P.W.1 (in cross-examination) and has come to a categorical conclusion that the lease of fishing right for Fasli 1404 has not at all been enjoyed by the Respondent/Defendant even after Ex.A2, Notice dated 17.02.1995 and also opined that the Respondent/Defendant is not bound to pay a sum of Rs.13,000/-for the Fasli year 1404 to the Appellant/Plaintiff (Temple) and in fact, the First Appellant Court has looked into the entire oral and documentary evidence of the parties in a conspectus fashion and the findings of fact so arrived need not be disturbed by this Court at this distant point of time sitting in Second Appeal. At this juncture, a cursory perusal of the plaint averments of the Appellant/Plaintiff (Temple) shows that it is the case of the Appellant/Temple that to the Respondent/Defendant, the fishery right of the Appellant/Temple for three Faslies 1404 to 1406 has been let out on lease for Rs.13,000, Rs.15,000/- and Rs.17,000/-on 7.12.1994 and on that basis, the Respondent/Defendant has been let out on lease on 17.12.1994 and on that basis, the Respondent/Defendant has been in enjoyment of the fishery right in the Temple tank for the Fasli 1404 and as such, the Respondent/Defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.13,000/-as lease amount to the Appellant/Plaintiff (Temple). 13. The main thrust of the plea of the Appellant/Plaintiff (Temple) is that the Respondent/Defendant, instead of notice being sent by the Appellant/Plaintiff (Temple) and reply being received thereto, has handed over possession of the tank and has been in enjoyment of the same and since the amount of Rs.13,000/- being the fishery leasehold right for Fasli 1404 has not been paid by the Respondent/Defendant, the Appellant/Plaintiff (Temple) has chosen to file the present Suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.13,000/- along with subsequent interest and costs. 14. 14. In the Written Statement, the Respondent/Defendant has averred that he is not liable to pay any lease amount for Fasli 1404 to the Appellant/Plaintiff (Temple), wherein the fishery right in the Temple tank has been claimed by him and there has been no acceptance of the offer made by the Respondent/Defendant and that the Appellant/Plaintiff has not passed any lawful order and for Faslies 1405, 1406, the Respondent/Defendant is not liable to pay any amount and in respect of Fasli 1404, the Appellant/Plaintiff has himself availed the fishery right and for subsequent Faslies, has let out the Temple tank for auction to different persons. 15. In Ex.A1, Letter dated 07.12.1994, addressed by the Respondent/Defendant to the Hereditary Trustee of the Appellant/Temple, he has inter alia prayed for the fishery right in the Appellant/Temple tank by letting out fishes in it and to receive profits therefrom in respect of three Faslies and further he has made mention of, that for the last ten years, he has taken the fishery lease of the Temple tank and very categorically stated that in respect of Faslies 1404, 1405 and 1406, he is ready to pay a sum of Rs.13,000/-, Rs.15,000/- and Rs.17,000/-, respectively and after receipt of order from the Temple, he is ready to deposit the Fasli amount and further he has undertaken to pay the balance amount during the Fish catching season. In short, in Ex.A1, Letter, dated 07.12.1994, the Respondent/Defendant has requested the Hereditary Trustee of the Appellant/Temple to pass an order immediately without any delay, whatsoever. 16. In Ex.A2, Notice dated 17.02.1995 addressed to the Respondent/Defendant, the Appellant/Plaintiff (Temple) has stated that the Temple fishing right for Faslies 1404 to 1406 in respect of the Respondent/Defendant has been recommended by the Appellant/Plaintiff (Temple) and further he has been informed to pay the requisite amount for Fasli 1404 and to enjoy the said rights and this has been informed to the Respondent/Defendant on numerous occasions and that he has agreed to pay the said lease amount within a period of one week, but has not paid the same and therefore, he has been informed to pay the fishery leasehold right amount within a period of one week and enjoy the same. 17. 17. The Respondent/Defendant, by his reply dated 23.02.1995, Ex.A3 addressed to the Appellant/Plaintiff's (Temple) Executive Officer, has stated that he has only submitted the application to let out small fresh water fishes (Minnows) in the Appellant/Plaintiff (Temple) and to nurture them and subsequently to enjoy the benefits and only for that purpose, he has made a petition specifying the amount and he has not applied for such an amount for enjoying the fishery right and moreover, he has not mentioned that he will pay the Fasli 1404 amount, etc. 18. Significantly, in Ex.A3-Reply Notice, dated 23.02.1995, the Respondent/Defendant has also averred that because of the administrative delay, the balance four months only remains and during this remaining period, there is no time to let out small fresh water fishes and nurture them. Moreover, because of the oral assurance given to him, he has incurred an expenditure of well over Rs.15,000/-and brought small fresh water fishes and he is under sufferance also. Added further, the Respondent/Defendant has also stated that there is no mistake on his part and after receipt of the order within one week, he will deposit the amount and he will remit the leasehold fishery right amount in respect of the concerned Faslies. 19. Ex.A7 is the Appellant/Plaintiff's Temple Resolution dated 07.12.1994, wherein it is mentioned that for Faslies 1404 to 1406, the leasehold fishery right has been decided to be given in favour of the Respondent/Defendant for Rs.13,000/-, Rs.15,000/-and Rs.17,000/-, respectively. 20. Ex.B1 is the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Endowment Board, Thanjavur, dated 19.06.1990, wherein, the fishing leasehold right of the Appellant/Temple tank has been given for three Faslies 1400 to 1402 to the Respondent/Defendant with stipulated conditions therein. 21. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Defendant takes a technical legal plea that in Ex.A2-Notice dated 17.12.1995 of the Appellant/Plaintiff (Temple) addressed to the Respondent/Defendant, the Respondent/Defendant has been directed to pay the Fasli fishery right amount within one week and to enjoy the said right and further no communication has been issued by the Appellant/Plaintiff/Temple accepting the letter dated 07.12.1994, Ex.A1 of the Respondent/Defendant and as such in the present case on hand, no concluded contract has taken place between the parties and therefore, the Respondent/Defendant is not liable to pay a sum of Rs.13,000/- in respect of Fasli 1404, as claimed by the Appellant/Plaintiff/Temple. 22. 22. P.W.1, (Suit Clerk of the Appellant/Plaintiff/Temple), in his evidence has deposed that the Respondent/Defendant has submitted the Petition-Ex.A1, dated 07.12.1994, wherein, he has prayed for the fishery right in the Appellant/Plaintiff's (Temple) tank and Ex.A2-Notice dated 17.02.1995 has been issued to the Respondent/Defendant, wherein, he has been required to pay the Fasli 1404 amount of Rs.13,000/- and to enjoy the fishery right and for Ex.A2, the Appellant/Plaintiff's (Temple) Notice dated 17.02.1995, the Respondent/Defendant has issued a reply notice-Ex.A3, dated 23.02.1995. 23. It is the further evidence of P.W.1 that it is not correct to state that Fasli 1404 in the Appellant/Plaintiff (Temple), the Temple itself has availed the fishery right in the tank and that the Appellant/Plaintiff (Temple) has not issued any order in writing that Ex.A1-Letter of the Respondent/Defendant dated 07.12.1994 has been accepted and after Faslies 1405 and 1406, the Fishery leasehold right has been given to different persons and Ex.A4-Notice dated 10.03.1995 is the document for claiming the balance fishery leasehold amount in respect of Fasli 1404 from the Respondent/Defendant. 24. The evidence of P.W.1 proceeds to the effect that in Ex.A1-Letter dated 07.12.1994 of the Respondent/Defendant, the final Resolution written in the Resolution Book has not been filed into Court and he does not know that the small fresh water fishes are of six months old. 25. Even in re-examination, P.W.1 has also deposed that accepting the Petition-Ex.A1 dated 07.12.1994 of the Respondent/Defendant, the Resolution has been passed by the Appellant/Plaintiff (Temple) and that the Resolution Book is in the Appellant/Plaintiff (Temple) and the xerox copy has been filed. That apart, it is the evidence of P.W.1 that in respect of Fasli 1405, the fishery leasehold right in respect of the Appellant/Temple tank has been given to the Respondent/Defendant's son, who has paid the amount. 26. It is the evidence of D.W.1 (Respondent/Defendant) that there is no contract in respect of Fasli 1404 for the Suit tank and he has only given Ex.A1-Petition dated 07.12.1994 and it is not correct to state that as per Ex.A1-Letter, the Appellant/Plaintiff (Temple) Suit fishery leasehold right has been given to him for Fasli 1404. 26. It is the evidence of D.W.1 (Respondent/Defendant) that there is no contract in respect of Fasli 1404 for the Suit tank and he has only given Ex.A1-Petition dated 07.12.1994 and it is not correct to state that as per Ex.A1-Letter, the Appellant/Plaintiff (Temple) Suit fishery leasehold right has been given to him for Fasli 1404. Continuing further, it is the evidence of D.W.1 that before 1404 Fasli, for ten years, he has taken the Appellant/Plaintiff's (Temple) Suit pond/tank for lease and at that time, the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board Inspector will be issuing the leasehold right and for Fasli 1404, he has not nurtured the young fishes in the Suit pond. 27. In his cross-examination, D.W.1 has specifically denied that he has agreed to pay the fishery lease amount of Rs.13,000/- in respect of Fasli 1404. 28. At this juncture, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Defendant draws the attention of this Court to Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, under the caption "Alienation of Immovable Trust Property' and states that the Respondent/Defendant has taken the Appellant/Plaintiff's (Temple) Suit Fishery leasehold right in the pond from the year 1984 and since it exists beyond a period of five years in aggregate, a prior permission of the Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department has to be obtained compulsorily and in the instant case on hand, such a course has not been adopted by the Appellant/Plaintiff (Temple) in respect of the Fasli 1404 leasehold fishery right in the pond of the Appellant/Plaintiff (Temple) and also in the absence of any concluded contract recording the acceptance of the offer made by the Respondent/Defendant as per Ex.A1, Letter dated 07.12.1994 by the Appellant/Plaintiff (Temple), the claim of the Appellant/Plaintiff (Temple) is not sustainable in the eye of law. 29. This Court worth recalls the evidence of P.W.1 (in his cross-examination) that in Ex.A2-Notice of the Appellant/Plaintiff (Temple) dated 17.02.1995, it is stated that till 17.02.1995, the Respondent/Defendant has not enjoyed the leasehold fishery right. 29. This Court worth recalls the evidence of P.W.1 (in his cross-examination) that in Ex.A2-Notice of the Appellant/Plaintiff (Temple) dated 17.02.1995, it is stated that till 17.02.1995, the Respondent/Defendant has not enjoyed the leasehold fishery right. Based on the evidence of P.W.1, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Defendant submits that P.W.1 himself has admitted in his cross-examination that the Respondent/Defendant has not enjoyed the leasehold fishery right in respect of the Appellant/Plaintiff (Temple) Suit fishery right and in view of the said tacit admission, no claim of Rs.13,000/- can be made by the Appellant/Plaintiff (Temple) in the Suit. 30. It transpires from Ex.A2, Notice dated 17.02.1995 of the Appellant/Plaintiff (Temple) addressed to the Respondent/Defendant that what has been stated therein is only that the Respondent/Defendant has been asked/required to pay the leasehold Fasli right for 1404 within a week and to enjoy the said fishery right thereafter. Therefore, even though P.W.1 has categorically stated in his evidence in cross-examination that in Ex.A2-Notice dated 17.02.1995, it is mentioned that the Respondent/Defendant has not enjoyed the leasehold fishery right, yet the said admission cannot be contra and opposed to the contents of Ex.A2-Notice dated 17.02.1995. 31. Even though an admission ordinarily can be the best form of admission in a person's evidence, yet, if the said admission goes against the very content and purport of Ex.A2-Notice dated 17.02.1995 of the Appellant/Plaintiff (Temple), then in that event, it is not open to the Appellant/Plaintiff to take advantage of the same. As a matter of fact, the purported admission so made by P.W.1 as referred to above will not enure to benefit of the Respondent/Defendant in the considered opinion of this Court. As such, the contra plea taken by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Defendant is not accepted by this Court. 32. A perusal of Ex.A7, Resolution of the Temple shows that the fishery leasehold right has been given in favour of the Respondent/Defendant. It is true that the Appellant/Temple in regard to the leasehold right for Fasli 1404 given to the Respondent/Defendant has not placed before the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or Joint Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board for approval. But that is only a inter se matter between the Appellant/Plaintiff (Temple) and the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board. 33. But that is only a inter se matter between the Appellant/Plaintiff (Temple) and the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board. 33. It is to be noted that lease of a property is a very valuable right and an implied surrender would not be readily inferred. Ordinarily, if the lease period has expired, then it has to be auctioned afresh. A lease cannot be renewed automatically, if it is expired. No document has been placed before the trial court by the Respondent/Defendant to the effect that he has surrendered possession of the Temple tank to and in favour of the Appellant/Plaintiff. To put it differently, there is no communication in the present case that the Respondent/Defendant has surrendered his fishery right in respect of the Appellant/Plaintiff's Temple tank even after the expiry of the original lease period. 34. At this stage, Ex.A7-Resolution of the Temple, dated 07.12.1994 of the Appellant/Plaintiff/Temple cannot be called as nom and shaminal one (notwithstanding the fact that there is no separate confirmation order issued by the competent authority viz., the Deputy Commissioner of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Endowment Board relating to the fishery right of the Respondent/Defendant in respect of Fasli 1404). It is true that the power as per Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959 is a plenary one and should be exercised in regard to the necessity, bearing in mind that the lease in issue will benefit the Institution. Even if the Commissioner sanctions/confirms the subject matter of leasehold fishery right of the Respondent/Defendant in respect of Fasli 1404, then no Civil Court can sit in judgment over the said factum of sanction and only the Court of Law can find out whether the outlined procedure has been adhered to by the Commissioner before according a green signal/approval. 35. Obtaining the written order/confirmation order relating to fishery leasehold right for a particular Fasli in the Appellant/Plaintiff/Temple tank is a matter to be looked into by the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board and certainly, it is an internal matter between the Appellant/Plaintiff's Temple and the Hindu Religious Charitable Endowment Board. Any omission in this regard will not disentitle the Appellant/Plaintiff/Temple to make a claim for the Suit amount against the Respondent/Defendant, as opined by this Court. 36. Any omission in this regard will not disentitle the Appellant/Plaintiff/Temple to make a claim for the Suit amount against the Respondent/Defendant, as opined by this Court. 36. It is the case of the Appellant/Plaintiff/Temple that the Respondent/Defendant is in possession of the Suit pond from the year 1984 and if really, he has not been in possession of the Suit pond, then there would not have been any necessity for him to let out small fresh water fishes in the Suit Tank for nurturing the same and to enjoy the benefits. Also that in this regard, the Respondent/Defendant has spent a sum of Rs.15,000/-. No doubt, Ex.B1-Order of the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board, Thanjavur dated 19.06.1990, speaks of lease for Fasli 1400 to the Respondent/Defendant based on the earlier Resolution. Even in the absence of any Resolution or any concluded contract or acceptance of the Letter-Ex.A1 dated 07.12.1994, this Court is of the considered view that it cannot be said by any means that the Respondent/Defendant is not in possession of the Appellant/Plaintiff Suit pond and after the expiry of the original lease period, he continues to be in possession of the Suit pond as a person based on the concept of 'holding over or a person under sufferance' and only for the other Faslies 1405 and 1406, the fishery leasehold right has been given to a different person other than the Respondent/Defendant and in fact, the said leasehold right has been given to the Respondent/Defendant's own son. 37. 37. Be that as it may, in the instant case on hand, based on the evidence of P.W.1, D.W.1 and the documents available on record, this Court comes to an inevitable conclusion that even though there is no acceptance of the offer made by the Respondent/Defendant as per Ex.A1-Letter dated 07.12.1994 to the Appellant/Plaintiff (Temple), yet, since the Respondent/Defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the Suit tank in respect of Fasli 1404 and taking note of another vital fact that he has spent Rs.15,000/- by letting out small fresh water fishes in the Suit Temple, the Respondent/Defendant is liable to pay only the Suit amount of Rs.13,000/-to the Appellant/Plaintiff (Temple) and in the absence of a proper order being passed by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board or there is no acceptance of the offer made by the Respondent/Defendant to the Appellant/Plaintiff (Temple), it cannot be taken advantage of by the Respondent/Defendant in any manner because of Ex.A7-Resolution coupled with Ex.A4-Notice dated 10.03.1995 and Ex.A6-Notice dated 10.06.1995 and it is held by this Court that the Respondent/Defendant is liable to pay the Suit claim. 38. Viewed in that perspective, the Substantial Questions of Law Nos.1 and 2 are answered against the Respondent/Defendant and in favour of the Appellant/Plaintiff/Temple. Consequently, the Second Appeal filed by the Appellant/ (Plaintiff (Temple) succeeds. 39. In the result, the Second Appeal is allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Resultantly, the Judgment and Decree of the First Appellate Court dated 28.01.1998 in A.S.No.36 of 1997 on the file of the Learned Additional District Judge, Nagapattinam are hereby set aside for the reasons assigned in this Appeal. Though the Appellant/Plaintiff (Temple) has claimed the subsequent interest of Rs.13,000/-in the plaint, and the trial Court has granted 6% interest for the said amount from 08.08.1995 till date of realization, this Court directs the Respondent/Defendant to pay the Suit claim of Rs.13,000/- to the Appellant/Plaintiff (Temple) within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment and in default, only the Respondent/Defendant is directed to pay the subsequent interest at 6% per annum from the date of Decree till the date of realisation.