IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13332 of 2004 SUDHIR KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 11 21.07.2008 The petitioner and Respondent No. 4 are own brothers. It appears that the licence of exhibiting cinematograph films originally stood in the name of maternal grand father of the petitioner and Respondent No. 4. After his death, at the request of the maternal grand mother, the licence was granted in name of petitioner’s father. After the death of petitioner’s father, the licence continued in the name of petitioner’s father, though, was being managed by petitioner’s mother, and in fact by Respondent No. 4 under power of attorney from the mother. So long as the mother was alive, there were no disputes. Now, after mother’s death, the authorities have granted temporary licence in the name of Respondent No. 4 finding respondent No. 4 in possession and in management of the Cinema which was from before the death of the mother. Petitioner objects and seeks direction to the Cinema Licensing Authority of the district to renew the licence jointly in the name of the petitioner and 2 Respondent No. 4, as they are both class one heirs of their late mother. As there were dues in relation to the said licence the authorities asked the petitioner as to who will pay those dues. Petitioner refused on the ground that he was not managing the affairs. Authorities finding Respondent No. 4 in possession and management and Respondent No. 4 having agreed to liquidate the entire dues, the licence was renewed in favour of Respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 4 states that in fact the property was stridhan of their mother and only licence was issued in name of their father to manage the said property. Mother died giving a will bequeathing the said property to the Respondent No. 4, for which probate case is pending. To the contrary, petitioner submits that there is yet another will in which the property is still in the name of both the persons. Regrettably, there is no statement whether any probate proceeding is pending in relation to this second will. Heard the parties. In my view, in view of the disputed 3 question of fact involved with regard to succession and inheritance, the parties have to take resort to Civil Court for settling the issue. Whether it was stridhan property of the mother and who will operate are questions to be decided before a Court of competent jurisdiction. Parties are at liberty to move the Court in this regard. But, so far as the licence is concerned, in terms of the Bihar Cinema Regulation Act and the rules framed thereunder, who is in possession, is material. Petitioner does not dispute that from the time of mother, Respondent No. 4 was in possession and managing the affairs of the Cinema, though, under a power of attorney granted by the mother. Even now, he does not dispute that Respondent No. 4 is in possession and in management of the Cinema. It is not in dispute that Respondent No. 4 has accepted the entire liability and undertaken to liquidate the same. Considering these facts, I am not inclined to interfere with the actions of the Respondent-Cinema Licensing Authority. It is for the aggrieved party to go and get appropriate orders from the Court of competent civil 4 jurisdiction as to their civil rights and the directions of the Civil Court in this regard would ultimately bind the Cinema Licensing Authority, but, for the present, the person who is in possession and management, could, without contravention of any provisions of the Act and rules framed thereunder, continue to act as such. However, if the competent Civil Court decides otherwise in favour of the petitioner, Respondent No. 4 could be accountable to the petitioner in this regard. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh,J.)