Ram Janam Vs Radhakrishna Chaube & Ors.

Appellant- Ram Janam

Respondent- Radhakrishna Chaube & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/03/1996

Statutes Referred-

  1. U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939.
  2. Bihar & Uttar Pradesh [Alteration of Boundaries] Act

Cases Referred- N/A

Facts-

  1. 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.
  2. 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 disputed his rights saying that the lands are their own khudkasht lands and were never in possession of the appellant.
  3. 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 his own right by hereditary succession as tenant and that, therefore, he became tenant under the Act. On appeal, it was confirmed.
  4. 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 Bihar and Uttar Pradesh Pradesh [Alteration of Boundaries] Act, 1968 passed by the Parliament, the village of Mohammadpur in the district of Ballia in Uttar Pradesh was part of Shahabad District in Bihar State.
  5. 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.
  6. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the decrees of the courts below were set aside. Thus, such Special Leave for Appeal has been preferred before the Supreme Court.

Issues-

  • Whether the tenants have tenancy rights under Sections 59 and 61 of the U.P. Tenancy Act?
  • Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit to grant the relief prayed for?
  • Whether the decree of the trial Court is a nullity or lacks inherent jurisdiction?

Contention of Parties

Appellant’s arguments-

  1. Appellant had instituted a suit under Sections 59 and 61 of the U.P. Tenancy Act claiming that the appellant has been in possession of the land for over 50 years and had acquired hereditary tenancy rights therein.

Respondent’s arguments

  1. The respondents had disputed his rights saying that the lands are their own khudkasht lands and were never in possession of the appellant.
  2. 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 & Uttar Pradesh [Alteration of Boundaries] Act.

Judgement-

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. Consequently, the finding of adverse 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. Consequently, the trial Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit at that time. Though under the Boundaries 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 trial Court.
  7. As on the date of the decree the Boundaries Act had come into force and consequently even the doubtful territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court stands rectified on the date when the decree was granted by the trial court. Consequently, the Act applies to the rights claimed there under.

Rule of Law-

Determination of the tenancy rights of the appellants under UP Tenancy Act along with jurisdiction of trial court in trying disputed territory.

Conclusion-

The land by course of stream of Ganga river of the territory of Bihar, remained to be within the district of Ballia by line of deep stream. As per the operation of the Boundaries Act, the jurisdiction of the area was not transferred to the Bihar courts. Thus, the land remained to be within the jurisdiction of the trial Court.

Thus, the appellant was entitled to the relief sought for in the suit. The courts had rightly granted the relief.

Related Post