The trial Court and the appellate Court also lacked inherent jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
The respondents had disputed his rights saying that the lands are their own khudkasht lands and were never in possession of the appellant.
The respondents challenged the companyrectness of the decree and judgment of the companyrts below on question of jurisdiction of the companyrt in the High Court.
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.
Consequently, the finding of adverse possession recorded by the trial Court was number companyrect in law.
At the time when the suit was instituted the Act had numberapplication.
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.
On appeal, it was companyfirmed.
Therefore, the suit was number maintainable in law.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the decrees of the companyrts below were set aside.
The Raja of Dumraon had interfered with his rights to possession thereof and that, therefore, they claimed for declaratory relief against the respondents.
Thus this appeal by special leave.
The High Court found that under the Bihar Uttar Pradesh Alteration of Boundaries Act, 1968 Act 24 of 1968 for shorts 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.
The facts number 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.
