RAM JANAM versus RADHAKRISHNA CHAUBE AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] 3 S.C.R. 400 · Decided: 13-03-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, K. VENKATASWAMI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAMJANAM 
v. 
RADHAKRISHNA CHAUBE AND ORS. 
• MARCH 13, 1996 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.) 
U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939: Sections 59 and 61. 
Bihar and Uttar Pradesh (Alteration of Boundaries) Ac4 1968 : Sec-
C tions 2(a), 3, 8, 26 and 30. 
Suit-Jurisdiction of Coun-Suit filed by appellant seeking declaratory 
relief against respondent-Appel/ant claiming to have acquired hereditary 
tenancy rights being in possession for 50 years-Suit land situated in Bal/ia 
district of UP-With the coming into force of.Boundaries Act it fonned pan 
1 
D of Shaltbad District in Bihar-Suit decreed by Trial Coun after coming into 
~ 
. 
~-
force of Boundanes Act-'--Decree a/finned by Appellate Court-Concurrent 
finding by Trial and Appellate Coun that appellant was tenant under the 
Tenancy Act and had peifected his title by adverse possession-Appeal by 
respondents-Challenge on the ground of lack of jurisdictiori-Higlt Coun 
E Ito/ding that since there was submersion and_ re-emergence of the lands by 
alluvion or de-alluvion from time to time, changing of boundaries of the 
States of U.P. and Bilzar, the continuous possession for over statutory period 
of 12 years was interuppted and consequently the finding of adverse posses-
sion recorded by the trial Coun was not correct in law-But no evidence 
_}
F placed on record-Held High Coun was not right in inteifering with the r 
concurrent findings of fact recorded by the couns below-By vinue of section: 
26 the U.P. Tenancy Act continued to be applied to the land in quest(on-A/-.. _ .. 
pellant held entitled. to the relief sought for in the suit. 
I • 
.
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal N_h:-3095 of 
1981. 
' 
. 
f 
. , 
.•; +
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.5.81 of the Allahabad High 
Court in S.A. No. 1442 of 1974. 
• 
' 
H 
S.S. Javeli, T. N. Singh, S. N. Singh, H.L. Srivastava and B. N. Sharma· 
400 
( 
RAM J ANAM v. R. CHA UBE 
401 
for the Appellants. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
. This appeal by special arises from the judgment and decree of the 
Allahabad High Court made in S.A. No. 1442/74 on May 7, 1981. 
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 
A 
B 
-;-
'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 posses.,ion thereof and that, C 
therefore, they claimed for declaratory relief against the respondents. The 
respondents had disputed his rights saying that the lands are their own 
khudkasht lands and were never in possession of tire appellant. The trial 
Court, after framing appropriate issues and adduction of evidence by the 
parties, has held that the appellant has been in possession over 50 years in D 
)( 
his own right by hereditary succession as tenant and that, therefore, he 
became tenant under the Act. On appeal, it was confirmed. The respon-
dents 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 & Uttar Pradesh (Alteration of Boun-
E 
daries) 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 
Utlar 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 appellate 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. 
The trial Court and the appellate Court recorded concurrently as a 
F 
fact that the appellant was a tenant under the respondents and that he had G 
~ • 
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 
lands 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 statutory 
period of 12 years was interrupted. Consequently, the finding of adverse H 
402 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] 3 S.C.R. 
A possession recorded by the trial Court was not correct in law. It is clear 
from the record that there i

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.