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 Ra