Madras High Court
Chalasani Poorna Chandra Rao vs Smt. Chalasani Jayaprada Devi on 16 November, 2021
C.S.(Comm.Div.) 917 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated :16.11.2021
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE N.ANAND VENKATESH,. J
Civil Suit (Comm.Div.) No.917 of 2016
Chalasani Poorna Chandra Rao
3/172 Kumaran Colony, 6th Street,
Vadapalani
Chennai - 600 026.
.... Plaintiff
/versus/
1.Smt. Chalasani Jayaprada Devi
W/o.Venkateswara Rao,
Door No.57-14-3, New P&T Colony Patamata,
Vijayawada - 6.
2. Prasad Film Laboratories
58, Arunachalam Road,
Saligramam,
Chennai - 600 093.
3. Mr. Sudhakar N Kalluri
G-B Roselyn Garden Apartments
37, Barnaby Road, Kilpauk
Chennai - 600 010.
.... Defendant
Prayer: Plaint under Order IV Rule 1 of O.S.Rules read with
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.(Comm.Div.) 917 of 2016
Order VII Rule 1 C.P.C. and Sections 55 and 62 of the Copyright
Act 1957.
The plaintiff therefore prays for a judgement and decree
against the defendants as follows:
(a) For a declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute
owner of the limited copyright namely the Sole and Exclusive
copyright for broadcasting the films described in the Schedule
hereunder through any Satellite System (Indian or Foreign)
exclusive World Satellite Broadcasting Service, and cable rights
for the entirely world and for perpetual period.
(b) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants,
their men, agents, officers, etc. from telecasting, interfering or
infringing the plaintiff's limited copyright namely the Sole and
Exclusive copyright for broadcasting the films described in the
Schedule hereunder through any Satellite System (Indian or
Foreign) exclusive World Satellite Broadcasting Service, and cable
rights for the entirely world and for perpetual period in the
pictures, morefully described in the schedule to the plaint ;
(c) for costs of the suit; and
(d) for such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
For Plaintiff : Mr.C.Ramesh
For Defendant :Set exparte
2/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.(Comm.Div.) 917 of 2016
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has come up with the present suit
seeking for a declaration to declare that he is the absolute owner of
the copyright that was conferred on him through the agreement dated
08.04.1995 and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants,
their men, agents, officers etc. from telecasting, interfering or
infringing the copyright of the plaintiff.
2. The case of the plaintiff is that he is carrying on
business in exhibition, exploitation and distribution of motion
pictures. The plaintiff states that, by an agreement dated 08.04.1995,
the 1st defendant assigned the sole and exclusive copyright for
broadcasting the schedule mentioned movies, through any Satellite
System, Cable Television rights without any restrictions and
geographical area, in his favour for a valuable consideration and for
the period of 99 years. The further case of the plaintiff is that the 1st
defendant is also carrying on a similar business and during the course
of that business, she acquired the Satellite Television Broadcasting
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.(Comm.Div.) 917 of 2016
rights of the following pictures, mentioned in the schedule to the
plaint.
S. NO Name of the film
1 Kanchu Kagada
2 Kirai Kotigadu
3 Anadiga Adadi
4 Parama Sivudu
5 Anuraga Bandham
3. The further case of the plaintiff is that the 2nd defendant
through a letter dated 11. 08. 2009, confirmed the assignment made
by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff. It is stated that the
plaintiff has been enjoying the rights acquired by him through the
agreement dated 08.04.1995 without any interference, until the 3rd
defendant sent him a letter dated 16.09.2016. The letter stated that
the schedule mentioned motion pictures are offered for sale and that
the movies are free from any claim. The plaintiff further claims that
the 3rd defendant has questioned his copyright in the above
mentioned pictures. Through a letter dated 23.09.2016, the plaintiff
sent a reply to the 3rd defendant stating that he is the absolute owner
of the satellite rights of the schedule mentioned motion pictures. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.(Comm.Div.) 917 of 2016
plaintiff submits that he is having an apprehension that the
defendants may collude together and create another agreement to
defeat his rights. Aggrieved by the above sequence of events, the
present suit was filed.
4. The defendants were served with notice. They did not
choose to contest the suit and they were set ex-parte.
5. The only issue to be decided in the present suit is as to
whether the plaintiff has the exclusive right to exploit the copyright
given in his favour, by virtue of the agreement dated 08. 04. 1995,
executed in favour of the plaintiff by the 1st defendant.
6. This Court, by an order dated 16. 11. 2021, came to a
conclusion that oral evidence is not required and the suit can be
decided on the basis of the documents filed on behalf of the plaintiff.
Accordingly, the documents filed on behalf of the plaintiff were
marked as Exhibits P1 to P4.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.(Comm.Div.) 917 of 2016
7. Heard Mr.C.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the plaintiff.
8. The plaintiff is in the business of exploitation, exhibition
and distribution of motion pictures. The 1st defendant acquired the
Satellite Television Broadcasting rights of the pictures described in the
schedule to the plaint. The 1st defendant assigned this sole and
exclusive copyright in favour of the plaintiff through an agreement
dated 08 .04. 1995, which is marked as Exhibit P1. The agreement was
entered into for a valid consideration paid by the plaintiff to the 1st
defendant. By virtue of this agreement, the plaintiff acquired the
sole and exclusive copyrights for broadcasting the motion pictures
described in the schedule to the plaint without any restriction in
geographical area and for the period of 99 years.
9. It is also clear that the plaintiff addressed a letter to the
2nd defendant informing the assignment made by the 1st defendant,
in his favour. The same is evident from the letter dated 11. 08. 2019.
The 2nd defendant has confirmed the assignment through this letter
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.(Comm.Div.) 917 of 2016
and the same is marked as Exhibit P2.
10. The plaintiff received a letter dated 16. 09. 2016 from the
3rd defendant questioning the plaintiff as to whether he possesses
any right in the schedule mentioned movies. The plaintiff was also
informed that the 3rd defendant will proceed further to buy the
copyright in the schedule mentioned movies. This is evident from the
letter marked as Exhibit P3.
11. The plaintiff by letter dated 23. 09. 2016 informed the 3rd
defendant about the rights acquired by him, by virtue of the
agreement entered into with the 1st defendant. The same is evident
from the letter marked as Exhibit P4.
12. The plaintiff apprehended that the defendants will
collude together and create yet another agreement and thereby
deprive the copyright granted in the plaintiff's favour. It is with this
cause of action, the present suit has been filed before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.(Comm.Div.) 917 of 2016
13. In the considered view of this Court, the apprehension
entertained by the plaintiff has some basis. The letter of the 3rd
defendant marked as Exhibit P3 shows that the concerned defendant
was also aiming to get the copyright for the very same schedule
mentioned motion pictures. There was no control for the plaintiff to
have a check on the 1st defendant from once again assigning the
rights in favour of the 3rd defendant. Therefore, there was sufficient
cause of action for the plaintiff to file the present suit.
14. There is no doubt that the copyright over the schedule
mentioned motion pictures was in fact assigned in favour of the
plaintiff and the plaintiff had the sole and exclusive right to exploit
the said copyright without any restriction on the geographical area
and for a period of 99 years. In view of this finding, the issue framed
by this court is answered in favour of the plaintiff.
15. In the result, there shall be a decree as prayed for by the
plaintiff and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the
suit is allowed with costs of Rs. 10, 000 /-.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.(Comm.Div.) 917 of 2016
19.11.2021
Index:yes/no
Internet : Yes/No
rka
List of Witness examined on the side of the Plaintiffs:-
----
List of Witness examined on the side of the Defendant :-
-----
List of documents filed along with the plaint under Order VII Rule 14(1)
C.P.C.
Sl. Date Parties to the Description
Nos. Document
1. 08.04.1995 1st Defendant & Agreement Xerox Copy
Plaintiff
2. 11.08.2009 2nd Defendant to Letter Xerox Copy
Plantiff
3. 16.09.2016 3rd Defendant to Letter Xerox Copy
Plantiff
4. 23.09.2016 Plaintiff to 3rd Reply Xerox Copy
Defendant
List of the Exhibits marked on the side of the Defendants:-
--------
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.(Comm.Div.) 917 of 2016
N.ANAND VENKATESH,. J
rka
C.S.No.917 of 2016
19.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
