JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 24.10.2000 in A.S.No.35 of 2000, on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Thanjavur, confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.03.2000 in O.S.No.96 of 1999, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thiurvaiyaru). 1. Aggrieved over the concurrent findings of the Courts below granting mandatory injunction directing the appellant to receive the rent from the plaintiff/first respondent said to be the cultivating tenant, the present Second Appeal is filed. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein, as per their ranking before the Trial Court. 3. The brief facts leading to filing of the present Second Appeal is as follows: 3. (1). The suit property originally belonged to the appellant Temple. Originally, the lands were leased to the persons viz., Appasami Muthiriyar and Arumugam Muthiriyar. They leased their leasehold interest and handed over the property to one A. Sambasivam, S/o. Late Arunuchalam Muthiriyar, in and by a registered lease deed, dated 24.10.1965. The said A. Sambasivam was in possession of the property till his death in the year 1974. Thereafter, the second defendant discharged the mortgage and took possession of the property. Therefore, the above said Arumugam Muthiriyar, the original tenant has assigned the lease in favour of the plaintiff on 29.12.1987 for a sum of Rs.200/- per annum. 3. (2). When the plaintiff sent the rent due through a Demand Draft, the same was returned by the Executive Officer. Hence, the suit filed for mandatory injunction. 4. It is the contention of the defendants that originally the persons viz., Appasamy Muthiriyar and Arumugam Murthiriyar, who were the tenants in the suit property. Whereas, the plaintiff said to have obtained the assignment only from the said Arumugam Muthiriyar, one of the tenants referred to supra. Similarly, on such assignment, the plaintiff will not get any benefit under Act 57/61 and Act 10/69 and any entries in the RTR register will not bind the Temple. Only the second defendant was paying the rent to the Temple. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues: “(i).Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as such sought for in the plaint? (ii).To what other relief, the plaintiff is entitled?” 6. Only the second defendant was paying the rent to the Temple. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues: “(i).Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as such sought for in the plaint? (ii).To what other relief, the plaintiff is entitled?” 6. During trial, on the side of the plaintiff, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.18 were marked. On the side of the defendants, no evidences were adduced and no documents were marked. The trial Court granted judgment and decree. 7. The First Appellate Court has also confirmed the decree and judgment of the trial Court as against which the Second Appeal is filed. 8. While admitting the Second Appeal, the following substantial questions of law have been framed by this Court: “(i).Whether the Courts below are correct in law in failing to see that the assignment of the lease hold right in favour of the plaintiff is not valid as both the co-lessees have not joined in the assignment of lease hold right in favour of the plaintiff? (ii).Whether the Courts below are correct in law in failing to hold the suit bad for non-joinder of Appasamy Mutharaiyar, who the Courts below have held to have had a right of possession as a co-lesee, as a necessary party in the suit? (iii).Whether the Courts below are correct in law in decreeing the suit based upon earlier judgments in which the appellant Temple was not a party?” 9. Today, this Court has also framed the additional following substantial question of law in the Second Appeal: “Whether the lease of the properties is against the provision of Tamil Nadu Religious Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, when the original lease deed is terminated by efflux of time?" 10. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 11. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that merely on the basis of some self-serving documents said to be an assignment, one cannot get benefit under the Act 10/1969 and contend that he is a cultivating tenant in respect of a land. To be a cultivating tenant, a person, who has contributed his own physical labour or that of any member of his family in the cultivation of any land belonging to another as per the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955. To be a cultivating tenant, a person, who has contributed his own physical labour or that of any member of his family in the cultivation of any land belonging to another as per the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955. As contented though the Temple leased out the property in favour of Appasamy Muthiriyar and Arumugam Murthiriyar, in the year 1965, the above lease cannot be construed to mean that it was legally executed with the permission obtained from the Commissioner. 12. It is the contention of the appellant that such lease will not be valid and possession of the occupants would be considered as only trespassers and such persons will not get benefit under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955. He would further contend that the lease of the Temple property shall be as per the Rules only by way of public auction and not by private dealings. Hence, it is the contention that the suit for mandatory injunction is to receive the rent is not maintainable. 13. Whereas, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents Nos.1 and 3 would submit that the trial Court has considered the documents and the plaintiff was also recorded as a cultivating tenant as per Ex.A.15 and the Demand Draft was also sent and it has been returned by the Executive Officer, whereas, the name has been entered as a cultivating tenant by the Record officer and it is proved. Therefore, his contention is that the Temple is bound to receive the rent. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 14. I perused the entire materials. 15. A suit has been filed to issue a direction to the Temple to receive the rent. The plaintiff tried to establish his right as a Cultivating Tenant only on the basis of Ex.A.15 proceedings. Wherein, on the basis of Ex.A.15, the plaintiff's admitted case is that the plaintiff is not a direct tenant to the Temple he claims his right to only on the basis of the lease said to have been executed by the original tenant of the Temple. In Ex.A.15, the Executive Officer is shown as one of the respondent in the petition. That apart, the Record Officer is just accepted the contention of the plaintiff and concluded that he is a tenant. In Ex.A.15, the Executive Officer is shown as one of the respondent in the petition. That apart, the Record Officer is just accepted the contention of the plaintiff and concluded that he is a tenant. It is to be noted that the Record Officer has not conducted any enquiry as contemplated under Act 10 of 1969. 16. No proper enquiry has been made to find out whether a person seeks to register himself as a cultivating tenant was contributing his physical labour or any member of the family in cultivating the lands. Without going into the above aspects merely on the submissions and allegations of a person such proceedings have been recorded. No doubt any entry recorded by the Record Officer under the Act 10 of 1969, there shall be a presumption. Such presumption can be applied only to genuine entries made of the proper enquiry. It is also relevant to note for inclusion of lands in the approved record of tenancy rights, the land owner, intermediary or the tenant having interest in such land shall make an application to the Record Officer for inclusion of particulars relating to such land in the approved record of tenancy rights. The original tenancy rights has not been established. 17. Even assuming that there is a lease as admitted by the Temple, once such lease is for the period of five years or exceeding five years, such lease is nothing but null and void as per Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. Unless, it is sanctioned by the Commissioner, as being necessary or beneficial to the Institution. Therefore, once a person established his right as a Tenant for more than five years, the necessary corollary would be to establish the sanction by the Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. 18. Therefore, having regard to the allegations in the plaint that the property was mortgaged in the year 1963 and mortgage was in force till 1974, thereafter, the second defendant has discharged the mortgage and the original tenants viz., Appasami Muthiriyar and Arumugam Muthiriyar have once again assigned the lease deed in favour of the plaintiff. This would clearly indicate that the lease was executed for more than five years without any sanction whatsoever by the Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. This would clearly indicate that the lease was executed for more than five years without any sanction whatsoever by the Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. Therefore, such lease is not valid in the eye of law and the same cannot be enforced for any other purposes. Such being the position, when the person claimed to be a tenant on the basis of such invalid document getting his name registered under the Act 10 of 1969, such registration will not convey any such benefit to such person. 19. It is also relevant to note that Ex.A.5 proceeding also an ex-parte order. When the provision of the law prohibits the lease exceeding five years without sanction of the Commissioner, one cannot claim benefit as tenant merely on the basis of some arrangements between the persons, who entered into possession. 20. Further it is relevant to note that any lease in respect of the property belongs to the Religious institution, there is a special rules governing the lease of immovable property viz, Religious Institutions (Lease of Immovable Property) Rules, 1963. The Rule No.2 makes it very clear that the lease of immovable property and rights belonging to the religious institution shall be made by public auction. The auction shall, ordinarily, be conducted in the place in which the property is situated or the rights existence. These Rules are framed with object to protect and preserve the properties of religious institutions from the third parties claiming right on the basis of some understanding between them i.e., persons in possession or in occupation of such property. Therefore, in the absence of any such sanction for exceeding the lease for five years and such lease cannot be given any importance. Further, no sanction has been obtained even for leasing the property in favour of Appasami Muthiriyar and Arumugam Muthiriyar. Therefore, this Court has to necessarily conclude that the mere possession is however long, their possession could be construed only as a trespassers. 21. Such view of the matter, this Court directs the Temple Authorities to follow the provision of Section 34 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, while leasing the property besides following the Rules, namely, the Religious Institutions (Lease of Immovable Property) Rules, 1963. 21. Such view of the matter, this Court directs the Temple Authorities to follow the provision of Section 34 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, while leasing the property besides following the Rules, namely, the Religious Institutions (Lease of Immovable Property) Rules, 1963. Any violation of this provision by the Officials shall be seriously viewed by the Higher Officials and any of the immovable properties dealt ignoring the provision of Section 34 of the Act and the Rules referred above, the erring Officials to be proceeded for disciplinary proceedings. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law are answered. 22. In the result, the Second Appeal stands allowed and the judgment and decree in A.S.No.35 of 2000, on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Thanjavur is set aside and the decree and judgment in O.S.No.96 of 1999, on the file of the District Munsif, Thiruvaiyaru, is dismissed. No costs.