ORDER

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.

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 Rajd 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. 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. 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, 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 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.

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 lands by alluvion of dealluvion 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 possession recorded by the trial Court was not correct in law. It is clear from the record that there no factual evidence placed no rec&M 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 recorded by the courts below that the appellant had perfected his title by adverse possession.

4. 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 river and floods on account thereof, the abutting riverbeds were either submerged or accredited to the respective territories. Preceding the Boundaries Act, the admitted position was that the line of deep stream was a determinative factor. On account of the administrative and revenue difficulties felt by the State Governments of Bihar and U.P. both the Chief Ministers had requested the Prime Minister to resolve the dispute, pursuant 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 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 comp