SHEO DULARI DEVI Vs. NAGESHRA KUER

JUDGEMENT

(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 identical. 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-decessed 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 petitioner's 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 respondent, that included the properties in question. The will in question has been made annexure '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 number 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 petitioner's name was mutated with respect to all these holdings in the Arrah Municipality. Although the date of mutation 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 coming 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 refer presently, that her name was mutated more than 12 years before and in that way she had perfected her title. The petitioner's 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 properties 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 petitioner's case was purchased by her out of her own fund and she got her name mutated accordingly, in the municipal records with respect to all the holdings mentioned above. The trouble, however, started on applications of respondent 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 applications 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 September, 1973 by the Executive Officer of the Arrah Municipality (respondent No. 2). In her applications a copy of which is annexure 2 to each of the writ applications respondent No. 1 made out a case that Ram Das who was the adopted son of her father-in-law (Gopal Ram) and was looking after her affairs, got the name of his wife, namely, the petitioner, mutated with dishonest intention. She accordingly, prayed that her name may be mutated in place of the petitioner. In the mutation applications, the ground that was urged by respondent No. 1 was that her father-in-law (Gopal Ram) had executed a registered will in her favour. It has been seen that the will was executed as far back as in the year 1920 and that Gopal Ram also died, even according to her case, in the year 1938. If respondent No. 1, therefore, claimed, as is manifest from the mutation applications on the basis of the will, it was open to her to make the applications soon after Gopal Ram died. But as already said earlier, she waited until the year 1973. It may be stated at this very stage that respondent No. 1 after making her applications for mutation of her own name, made supplementary applications with respect to the two holdings, namely, holdings Nos. 383 and 423 which were subject matter of the trust deed of the year 1917 stating that her name may be mutated not in her own right but as the mutawalli of the deities concerned.