Holding

The Supreme Court held that the trial court possessed jurisdiction and the decree was valid; the Boundaries Act did not affect the applicability of the Uttar Pradesh Tenancy Act to the land, and the appellant was entitled to the relief sought.

Summary

Ramjanam filed a suit under Sections 59 and 61 of the Uttar Pradesh Tenancy Act, 1939, claiming hereditary tenancy rights after possessing the land for more than 50 years. The trial court and the appellate court held that he was a tenant and had acquired title by adverse possession, but the Allahabad High Court set aside those decrees, contending that the Bihar‑Uttar Pradesh (Alteration of Boundaries) Act, 1968 had removed the court's jurisdiction and that intermittent submergence of the land broke the continuity of possession. The Supreme Court examined the effect of the Boundaries Act, particularly Section 26, and found that the Act did not alter the territorial extent of the Uttar Pradesh Tenancy Act for the period in question, nor did it divest the trial court of jurisdiction. It also held that no evidence was placed on record to prove interruption of possession by alluvion. Consequently, the Supreme Court restored the trial and appellate courts' decrees, holding the appellant entitled to the relief claimed. The appeal was allowed and the High Court’s judgment was set aside.

Issues considered

Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit under the Uttar Pradesh Tenancy Act after the enactment of the Bihar‑Uttar Pradesh (Alteration of Boundaries) Act, 1968.
Whether intermittent submergence and re‑emergence of the land interrupted the statutory period of continuous possession required for adverse possession.
Interpretation of Section 26 of the Boundaries Act concerning the territorial extent of pre‑existing laws.
Whether the decree of the trial court is a nullity due to alleged lack of jurisdiction.

Legislation cited

Uttar Pradesh Tenancy Act, 1939s. 59, s. 61

Subjects

tenancyhereditary tenancyadverse possessionjurisdictioninter‑state boundary alterationUttar Pradesh Tenancy ActBihar‑Uttar Pradesh Boundaries Actcivil appealdeclaratory relief

Judgment

1

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
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
concurrent findings of fact recorded by the couns below-By vinue of section:
r
_}

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. CHAUBE 401

for the Appellants. A
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.
B
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 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 F
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
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 is no factual evidence placed on record in this
behalf to show as to when this submersion or re-emergence of the
appellants' lands had taken place. Under those circumstances, the High
Court was not right in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact
B recorded by the courts below that the appellant had perfected his title by
adverse possession.

The only crucial question that could touch the jurisdiction of the
courts is whether the trial Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit to
grant the relief prayed for. It is seen that on account of the flow of Ganga
C river and floods on account thereof, the abutting riverbeds were either
submerged or accredited to the respective territories. Preceding the Boun-
daries Act, the admitted position was that the line of deep stream was a
determinative factor. On account of the administrative and revenue dif-
ficulties felt by the State Governments of Bihar and U.P. both the Chief
D Ministers had requested the Prime Minister to resolve the dispute, pur-
suant to which Shri C.M. Trivedi came to be appointed as an arbitrator
who submitted his report. Consequent upon the report, the Boundaries Act
came to be enacted. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act
clearly indicates that ''(A)t present the deep stream of the river Ganga
E forms inter-State boundary between the Shahabad district of Bihar and
Ballia district of U.P ........ " In para 3 thereof it is stated thus :

"Clause 26 of the Bills provides that the existing laws shall continue
to be in force in the transferred territories until otherwise provided
by a competent legislature or other competent authority. However,
F because of the fluctuating nature of the present boundary, the
actual extent of the transferred territories may not be clear to the
authorities who have to implement the laws. Hence, provision has
been made for the demarcation of the fixed boundary on land,
determination of the deep streams of the two rivers and prepara-
G tion and publication of a map of the transferred territories before
the actual transfer is effected."

Consequently, the appointed day, viz., June 10, 1970 was determined
under the Boundaries Act by operation of Section 2 (a) thereof. Section 3
H deals with transfer of territories as and from the appointed day. Section 8
RAM JANAM v. R. CHAUBE 403

deals with the extension of the jurisdiction and transfer of proceedings to A
High Court at Allahabad and vice versa to Patna. Section 30 deals with
transfer of the proceedings to courts other than the High Courts. At this
point of time it would be relevant to note that Section 26 of the Boundaries
Act envisages the extent of the territorial extent of lands as envisaged under
the Boundaries Act. It reads as follows :
B
"26. Territorial extent of laws. - The provisions of Section 3 shall
not be deemed to have effected any change in the territories to
which any law in force immediately before the appoint day extends
or applies, and territorial references in any such law to the State
of Bihar or Uttar Pradesh Shall, until otherwise provided by a C
competent legislature or other competent authority, be construed
as meaning the territories within that State immediately before the
appointed day."

A reading thereof would clearly show that the provisions of Section D
3 should not be deemed to have effected any change in the territories to
y which any law in force immediately before the appointed day extends or
applies, and territorial references in any such law to the State of Bihar or
U.P. shall, until otherwise provided by a competent legislature or other
competent authority, be construed as meaning the territories within that E
State immediakly before the appointed day. It is also not in dispute that
right from 1959 the village continued to remain part of Ballia district in
U.P. Consequently, the Act came to be applied and continued to be
applied to the lands in question.

Jn view of the above legal setting, the question arises : whether the F
decree of the trial Court is a nullity or lacks inherent jurisdiction? Between
1959 and 1968, though the land by course of stream of Ganga river
accredited to the territory of Bihar, in fact it remained to be within the
district of Ballia by line of deep stream. Consequently, the trial Court had
the jurisdiction to entertain the suit at that time. Though under the Baun- G
daries Act the territories stood extended, in fact by operation of the
-~ • Boundaries Act the jurisdiction of the area was not transferred to the Bihar
courts. Consequently, the land remained to be within the jurisdiction of the
tri.al Court. As on the date of the decree the Boundaries Act had come
into force and consequently even the doubtful territorial jurisdiction of the H
404 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] 3 S.C.R.

A trial Court stands rectified on the date when the decree was granted by the
trial Court. Consequently, the Act applies to the rights claimed thereunder.
The appellant, therefore, is entitled to the relief sought for in the suit. The
courts below have rightly granted the relief.

The appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment and decree of the
B High Court in the Second Appeal No. 1442/74 is set aside and those of the
trial Court and appellate Court stand restored. No costs.

T.N.A. Appeal allowed.

-~