RAM JANAM Vs. RADHAKRISHNA CHAUBE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and decree of the Allahabad High Court made in S. A. No. 1442/74 on May 7, 1981.

(2.) The facts not in dispute are that the appellant had instituted a suit under Sections 59 and 61 of the U. P. Tenancy Act, 1939 (for short, the 'Act') claiming that the appellant has been in possession of the land for over 50 years and had acquired hereditary tenancy rights therein. The Raja of Dumraon had interfered with his rights to possession thereof and that, therefore, they claimed for declaratory relief against the respondents. The respondents had imputed his right saying that the lands are their own khudkasht lands and are never in possession of the appellant. The trial Court, after framing appropriate issues and abduction of evidence by the parties, has held that the appellant has been in possession over 50 years in his own right by hereditary succession as tenant and that, therefore, he became tenant under the Act. On appeal, it was confirmed. The respondents challenged the correctness of the decree and judgment of the Courts below on question of jurisdiction of the Court in the High Court. The High Court found that under the Bihar and Uttar Pradesh (Alteration of Boundaries) Act. 1968 (Act 24 of 1968) (for short, the 'Boundaries Act') passed by the Parliament, the village of Mohammadpur in the district of Ballia in Uttar Pradesh was part of Shahabad District in Bihar State. At the time when the suit was instituted the Act had no application. The trial Court and the appellant Court also lacked inherent jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Therefore, the suit was not maintainable in law. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the decrees of the Courts below were set aside. Thus this appeal by special leave.

(3.) The trial Court and the appellate Court recorded concurrently as a fact that the appellant was a tenant under the respondents and that he had tenancy rights as declared under Sections 59 and 61 of the Act. The High Court found that since there was submersion and re-emergence of the land by alluvion or de-alluvion from time to time, changing of boundaries of the States of U. P. and Bihar, the continuous possession for over statutroy period of 12 years was interrupted. Consequently, the finding of adverse possession record by the trial Court was not correct in law. It is clear from the record that there is no factual evidence placed on record in this behalf to show as to when this submersion or re-emergence of the appellants' land had taken place. Under those circumstances, the High Court was not right in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below that the appellant had perfected his title by adverse possession.