1. This batch of eight writ applications are being disposed of by this judgment as the parties are the same and the question for decision is almost iden-tical. The matter relates to mutation of the name with respect to certain houses situated in the town of Arrah under the jurisdiction of the Arrah Municipality. The relevant facts are these.

2. One Gopal Ram had a son Sakhichand who, however, pre-deceased him in the year 1914 leaving his widow Nageshra Kuer (respondent No. 1). The case of the petitioner is that on the death of Sakhichand, Gopal Ram adopted one Ram Das as his son who died in the year 1970 and the petitioner Sheo Dulari Devi is his widow. Gopal Ram, according to the petitioner, died in the year 1931 whereas according to respondent no. 1, in the year 1938. On the records of these cases, the petitioners assertion that Ram Das was adopted by Gopal Ram has not been controverted. In paragraph 1 of the writ application a definite assertion has been made to this effect and in the show cause filed on behalf of respondent no. 1 this fact has not been controverted. We shall, however, deal with this matter in a little more detail hereinafter.

3. It is said that Gopal Ram had executed a will in the year 1920 in favour of respondent No. 1 bequeathing all his properties in favour of respondent No.1 and, according to the case of this respon-dent, that included the properties in question. The will in question has been made A to the show cause filed in writ application no. 1477 of 1973. Respondent No. 1 has also annexed another document and that is a trust deed of the year 1917 and is annexure A to the show cause filed in writ application no. 1479 of 1973. This trust deed was again executed by Gopal Ram dedicating some properties to some deities. The properties covered by this trust deed are concerning C.W.J.C. Nos. 1479 and 1482 of 1973 being present municipal holdings Nos. 383 and 423 respectively (minjumle). We may also mention the municipal num-ber of the other holdings concerning the other writ applications and they are C.W.J.C. No. 1477/73, holding No. 461; CWJC No. 1478, holding No. 384; CWJC No. 1480/73 holdings Nos. 336 and 337; C.W.J.C. No. 1481 of 1973, holding No. 179, CWJC No. 1483/73, holding No. 368 and CWJC No. 1484/73, holding No. 265. The petitioners name was mutated with res-pect to all these holdings in the Arrah Municipality. Although the date of muta-tion of her name is not disclosed in the petition nor any date is disclosed in the different show cause and affidavits filed by the respondent and the petitioner, it is not disputed that her name was com-ing on in the municipal records from a long time and it had been asserted in the objection petition that was filed by the petitioner in the mutation proceedings that were initiated by respondent No. 1 in Arrah Municipality to which we shall re-fer presently, that her name was mutated more than 12 years before and in that way she had perfected her title. The petitioners case is that the family of Gopal Ram was affluent and owned considerable properties in the town. Further case of the petitioner is that all the proper-ties in question which of course belonged to the family of Gopal Ram were allotted on partition by a compromise decree in partition suit no. 36 of 1956 from the court of 1st Subordinate Judge at Arrah, except holding no. 179 concerning C.W.J.C. No. 1481 of 1973 which, according to the petitioners case was purchased by her out of her own fund and she got her name mutated accordingly, in the muni-cipal records with respect to all the hold-ings mentioned above. The trouble, however, started on applications of respon-dent no. 1 which were filed for mutation of her name in the municipal records in the Arrah Municipality. On 15th March, 1973 respondent no.1 made separate ap-plications for mutation of her name with respect to the above holdings giving rise to different mutation proceedings which also have been decided by a common order dated 29th