Madras High Court
M/S.Bharani Pictures Private Limited vs Doordarshan Kendra (Saptagiri ... on 1 March, 2024
Author: Abdul Quddhose
Bench: Abdul Quddhose
C.S.No.380 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 26.02.2024
Pronounced on : 01.03.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
C.S.No.380 of 2019
M/s.Bharani Pictures Private Limited,
Rep. By its Manager
Mr.Ramakrishna Bhatt,
Chennai. ... Plaintiff
Vs.
1.Doordarshan Kendra (Saptagiri Channel),
Rep. By its Director, Ponama Thotta,
Vijayawada – 520 001.
Andhrapradesh.
2.Doordarshan Kendra (Yadagiri Channel),
Rep. By its Director,
Ramanthapur,
Hyderabad – 500 043. ... Defendants
Prayer: Civil Suit is filed under Order IV Rule 1 of O.S. Rules read with
Order VII Rule 1 CPC and Sections 55 and 62 of the Copyright Act,
1957, praying:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/33
C.S.No.380 of 2019
(a) to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute copyright owner in
the suit films morefully described in the schedule hereunder as Item 1 to
21 having the rights of distribution, exhibition, exploitation rights,
inclusive of commercial, non-commercial, non-theatrical medias, world
Television rights, world video rights, world satellite rights, Pay TV, Pay
per view, Cable TV rights, DVD, VCD, LD, Internet and web based
technology rights DTU (Direct to User) and DTH (Direct to Home)
rights, and all other rights in whatsoever manner including the future
scientific advancement and technological rights for the territories of
entire world including India in respect of the suit films;
(b) to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their
agents, servants, each and every person or persons in any manner
interfering with infringing the plaintiff's copyright in the suit films
morefully described in Items 1 to 21 in the schedule hereunder inclusive
of commercial, non-commercial, non-theatrical medias, world
Television rights, world video rights, world satellite rights, Pay TV, Pay
per view, Cable TV rights, DVD, VCD, LD, Internet and web based
technology rights DTU (Direct to User) and DTH (Direct to Home)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/33
C.S.No.380 of 2019
rights, and all other rights in whatsoever manner including the future
scientific advancement and technological rights in respect of the suit
films;
(c) to direct the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- to the
plaintiff together with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of plaint till the
date of realization; and
(d) to pay the costs of the suit.
For Plaintiff : Mr.PL.Narayanan, Sr. Counsel
For Defendants : Mr.N.Ramesh, Standing Counsel
JUDGMENT
The suit has been filed for infringement of copyright and for
damages.
2. The plaintiff claims that they are the copyright holders of the 21
films disclosed in the schedule to the plaint. The plaintiff claims that
they are the producer of the schedule films and that the Censor
Certificate issued by the Censor Board also confirms the same. The
plaintiff claims that they have not assigned the copyright over the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
schedule films in favour of any party, much less to the defendants. The
plaintiff claims that they came to know from the market circles that the
defendants have been illegally telecasting the schedule films without
obtaining permission of the plaintiff, thereby infringing the copyright of
the plaintiff over the suit films.
3. The plaintiff claims that they have issued a legal notice to the
defendants on 28.02.2019 intimating the infringement of the plaintiff's
copyright by the defendants. The plaintiff also claims that they had also
caused a paper publication on 17.08.2016 in Andhra Prabha, a Telugu
daily, having wide circulation in the State of Andhra Pradesh and
Telengana
4. The plaintiff also claims that after the investigation, they came
to know that the defendants have illegally exploited the copyright of the
plaintiff over the schedule films by telecasting the same more than 30
times in their TV channels. According to the plaintiff, though they had
suffered a loss, which estimated to the tune of Rs.3,05,00,000/- on
account of infringement of the copyright by the defendants, they are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
restricting their claim for damages against the defendants at
Rs.25,00,000/-.
5. The defendants have filed a written statement denying the
infringement. They have also stated that the plaintiff has not produced
any proof to show that the copyright over the schedule films continued to
vest with them. According to the defendants, M/s.Bharani Pictures,
represented by its Proprietrix Smt.P.Bhanumathi delivered the rights
through a Deed of Ownership of World Negative by way of an agreement
with Mr.R.Parthasarathi Rao on 14.03.2002. Mr.R.Parthasarathi Rao,
thereafter, assigned the rights to Mr.Ramakrishna Reddy through a Deed
of TV Satellite (DD1 & DD8) agreement. Thereafter,
Mr.M.Ramakrishna Reddy delivered the rights to Ms.V.S.Ushavani
through a Deed of All India Telecasting (Doordarshan Rights) and the
articles of agreement dated 09.03.2010, in respect of 18 films out of 21
films disclosed in the schedule to the plaint. According to the
defendants, Ms.V.S.Usha Vani, thereafter, executed a Lease Deed in
favour of K.Sudha Rani on 04.09.2012, through a Deed of Agreement for
the film “Asadhyralu”, which is also one of the films disclosed in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
schedule.
6. The defendants also have stated that the said V.S.Usha Vani
executed a Lease Deed in favour of K.Ravi Chadrababu on 04.10.2014
relating to the films – Chakrapani, Lailamajnu, Vipranarayana,
Chintamani and Manavadikosam – which are also the films disclosed in
the schedule to the plaint. According to the defendants, the said K.Ravi
Chadrababu executed Indemnity bonds in favour of the defendants
relating to the films Chakrapani and Vipranarayana on 31.10.2014; Laila
Majnu and Chinthamani on 05.11.2014; and Manavadikosam on
19.01.2015. According to the defendants, a similar Indemnity Bond was
also executed by K.Sudha Rani in favour of the defendants on
10.04.2015 relating to the film Asadhyaralu. According to the
defendants, the rights given to the defendants by Mr.K.Ravichadrababu
and K.Sudha Rani under the Indemnity Bonds are only for 6 films out of
the 21 films disclosed in the schedule to the plaint and they are
Chakrapani, Vipranarayana, Laila Majnu, Chinthamani, Manavadikosam
and Asadhyaralu. According to the defendants, in respect of the
remaining films disclosed in the schedule to the plaint, they are not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
concerned with the same, as neither do they claim any right over the
same nor have they telecast the said films in their TV channels.
7. According to the defendants, the plaintiff company, i.e.,
M/s.Bharani Pictures Private Limited, was incorporated on 22.04.2015,
whereas M/s.Bharani Pictures, represented by its Proprietrix
Smt.P.Bhanumathi, sold her copyright over the said films in the year
2002 itself. According to the defendants, the plaintiff company does not
have any legal right to sue the defendants for infringement and for
damages.
8. It is also stated by the defendants that the first defendant did
telecast the film Chakrapani on 23.10.2014, which was first played in the
theatre as early as on 19.03.1954. It is also stated that the film Laila
Majnu was telecast in the defendants' TV channel on 19.11.2014,
whereas the film was first played in the theatre on 01.10.1949 itself.
Similarly, the defendants stated that the film Viparanarayana was telecast
in their TV channel on 17.11.2014, whereas the said film was first played
in the theatre on 10.12.1954; and the film Chinthamani was telecast in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
their TV channel on 03.12.2014, whereas the said film was first played in
the theatre in the year 1956 itself. According to the defendants, having
obtained the legal right to telecast these four films, they have not
infringed the copyright of neither the plaintiff nor any other party. They
have also categorically stated that they have not telecast the other films
disclosed in the plaint at any point of time.
9. The defendants have disputed the documents filed by the
plaintiff for the purpose of proving their copyright over the films
disclosed in the schedule to the plaint, as seen from the affidavit of
admission/denial of documents filed by the first defendant.
10. This Court, based on the pleadings of all the parties, framed
the following issues:-
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief
of declaration in respect of the suit films?
(ii) Whether the defendants have telecasted the
suit films after receiving the indemnity bond from the
authorized owner?
(iii) Whether the suit is maintainable without
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
any proof of authorization vested with the Private
Limited Company while the movie was produced by
M/s.Bharani Pictures, represented by its Proprietor
Smt.P.Bhanumathi through a Deed of Ownership of
world negative rights assigned by her to the third
party during her life time?
(iv) Whether the plaintiff has a valuable copy
right over the suit schedule movie to restrain the
defendants from telecasting the movie in any
manner?
(v) Whether the defendants are liable to pay
any damages to the plaintiff and what relief the
parties are entitled to?
11. The plaintiff's Finance Manager Mr.Ramakrishna Bhatt was
examined as a witness on behalf of the plaintiff (PW1). He filed a proof
affidavit reiterating the contents of the plaint. Through PW1, the
following documents were marked as exhibits:-
Dated Exhibits Nature of document
25.03.1948 Ex.P1 Photocopy of the Deed of Partnership executed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Dated Exhibits Nature of document
between Smt.Paluvai Bhanumathi and Paluvai
Ramakrishna Rao dated 25.03.1948.
17.08.1970 Ex.P2 Photocopy of the Partnership Deed executed between
P.S.Ramakrishna Rao, P.Bhanumathi & P.R.Bharani
dated 17.08.1970
Ex.P3 Certified copy of the Censor Certificate issued by the
Central Board of Film Censor
27.11.1986 Ex.P4 Photocopy of the Partnership Deed executed between
P.R.Bharani and P.Bhanumathi dated 27.11.1986
25.01.2005 Ex.P5 Photocopy of the Partnership Deed executed between
P.R.Bharani and P.Bhanumathi, Bridget Paluvai,
Meenakshi Paluvai and Venkatesh Paluvai, dated
25.01.2005.
13.01.2006 Ex.P6 Photocopy of the Deed of Partnership executed
between Dr.Paluvai R.Bharani, Bridget Bharani
Paluvai, Dr.Meenakshi Bharani Paluvai and Venkatesh
Bharani Paluvai, dated 13.01.2006
04.01.2015 Ex.P7 Photocopy of the Reconstitution Deed executed
between Dr.Paluvai R.Bharani, Bridget Bharani
Paluvai, Dr.Meenakshi Bharani Paluvai and Venkatesh
Bharani Paluvai, M/s.Bharani Hospital Private Limited,
Ramakrishna & Bhanumathi Family Trust and
Mrs.Radhika Kylasam, dated 04.01.2015
22.04.2015 Ex.P8 Photocopy of the Certificate of Incorporation of
M/s.Bharani Pictures Private Limited, dated
22.04.2015
17.08.2016 Ex.P9 Certified copy of the paper publication in Telugu daily
Andhra Prabha having circulation in the State of
Andhra Pradesh and Telengana, dated 17.08.2016
28.08.2016 Ex.P10 Photocopy of the letter issued by the plaintiff to the
defendants dated 28.08.2016
28.02.2019 Ex.P11 Office copy of the legal notice issued by the plaintiff's
counsel along with acknowledgment card dated
28.02.2019
06.03.2019 Ex.P12 Photocopy of the Film Chamber of Commerce
Certificate issued by the South Indian Film Chamber of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Dated Exhibits Nature of document
Commerce dated 06.03.2019
16.03.2019 Ex.P13 Photocopy of the Resolution passed at the meeting of
the Board of Directors dated 16.03.2019
The defendants' standing counsel also cross-examined the plaintiff.
12. The first defendant's Programme Executive Mr.G.Jagannadha
Reddy was examined as a witness on behalf of the defendants (DW1).
He has also filed a proof affidavit reiterating the contents of the written
statement filed by both the defendants. Through DW1, the following
documents were marked as exhibits:-
Dated Exhibits Nature of document
14.03.2002 Ex.D2 P.Bhanumathi delivered rights through Deed of
Ownership of World Negative Rights agreement with
Mr.R.Parthasarathi Rao
15.10.2008 Ex.D3 TV Satellite Agreement between R.Parthasarathi Rao
and M.Ramakrishnan Reddy
09.03.2010 Ex.D4 All India Telecasting (Doordarshan /Rights) Articles of
Agreement between M.Ramakrishnan Reddy and
Ms.V.S.Ushavani
04.09.2012 Ex.D5 Lease Deed executed by V.Ushavani to K.Sudha Rani
04.10.2014 Ex.D6 Lease Deed executed by V.Ushavani to
K.Ravichadrababu
05.11.2014 Ex.D7 Indemnity Bond executed by K.Ravichadrababu
10.04.2015 Ex.D8 Indemnity Bond executed by K.Sudha Rani
13. The second defendant's Program Executive Mr.K.Srinivas was
also examined as a witness on behalf of the defendants (DW2). He has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
also filed a proof affidavit reiterating the contents of the written
statement filed by the second defendant. Through DW2, the following
document was marked as exhibit:-
Ex.D9 – Original authorization letter dated 17.03.2023.
Both the witnesses on the side of the defendants were cross-examined by
the plaintiff's counsel.
14. Heard Mr.P.L.Narayanan, learned Senior Counsel, for
Mr.R.Vigneshkumar, learned counsel, for the plaintiff; and
Mr.N.Ramesh, learned Standing Counsel for the defendants.
15. The learned Senior counsel for the plaintiff drew the attention
of this Court to the various documents marked as exhibits on the side of
the plaintiff and also reiterated the contents of the plaint and would
submit that the plaintiff is the owner of the copyright over the films
disclosed in the schedule to the plaint. Having filed the documentary
evidence to establish that the plaintiff is the owner of the copyright over
the 21 films disclosed in the schedule to the plaint, the plaintiff has
discharged its burden of proving the suit claim and onus has been shifted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
on the defendants to disprove the plaintiff's contention. According to
him, the defendants have not effectively cross-examined the plaintiff's
witness to elicit effective answers to defeat the plaintiff's copyright
ownership over the suit films.
16. The learned Senior counsel would also submit that the plaintiff
had caused paper publication (Ex.P9) dated 17.08.2016 and had also
issued a legal notice dated 28.02.2019 (Ex.P11) to the defendants. But,
despite the same, the defendants have infringed the plaintiff's copyright
over the suit films and hence, they are liable to pay damages to the
plaintiff for the loss suffered by them on account of infringement.
17. The learned Senior counsel for the plaintiff would further
submit that the plaintiff company has acquired the copyright over the suit
films from the partnership firm by operation of law, hence, according to
him, the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration in respect of the
suit films and the suit is maintainable. He would further submit that the
plaintiff has not assigned any copyright of the suit films and therefore,
the agreement dated 12.03.2002 (Ex.D2) allegedly executed by Late
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Smt.P.Bhanumathi, Proprietrix of M/s.Bharani Pictures, in favour of
Mr.R.Parthasarathi Rao, is a fabricated and forged document. According
to him, having discharged the burden of the plaintiff's rights over the suit
films, onus is now upon the defendants to disprove the plaintiff's
contention through oral and documentary evidence. According to him,
the defendants have miserably failed to disprove the plaintiff's contention
as seen from the cross-examination of DW2, who has given contradictory
answers.
18. The learned Senior counsel for the plaintiff would submit that
the defendants having telecasted the films in their TV channels without
the permission of the plaintiff, are liable to pay damages to the plaintiff
as claimed in the suit, eventhough the plaintiff has suffered much more
loss than the suit claim. According to him, when the defendants have
categorically admitted that they have screened the suit films once in their
TV channels, such an admission is sufficient to prove that the defendants
have committed an act of copyright infringement. According to him,
judicial notice can also be taken that any movie telecasted will be
intercepted by commercial advertisement generating additional revenue.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Hence, according to him, the claim of Rs.25 lakhs sought for by the
plaintiff towards damages is a reasonable amount.
19. The learned Senior counsel for the plaintiff drew the attention
of this Court to the following authorities:-
(a) A Division Bench judgment of the Madras
High Court in the case of Srimagal and Co. Vs. Books
(India) Pvt. Ltd. and others [AIR 1973 Mad 49]; and
(b) a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Y.Savarimuthu Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
and others [2019 (13) SCC 142].
20. On the contrary, the learned standing counsel for the
defendants would reiterate the contents of the written statements filed by
the defendants in the suit. He would submit that only through valid and
legal documents, the defendants had obtained the rights to telecast six
films out of the 21 films disclosed in the plaint. According to him, the
defendants have traced their rights from the year 2002 onwards, when
M/s.Bharani Pictures, represented by its Proprietrix Smt.P.Bhanumathi,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
had assigned the rights to Mr.R.Parthasarathi Rao, who, in turn, had
assigned the rights to Ms.K.Sudha Rani and Mr.K.Ravichadrababu. The
defendants based on the Indemnity Bonds executed by Ms.K.Sudha Rani
and Mr.K.Ravichadrababu had telecast the six films out of the 21 films
disclosed in the schedule to the plaint only once. According to him,
excepting for examining the plaintiff's Finance Manager as a witness
(PW1) on behalf of the plaintiff, no other witness was examined to know
as to what had transpired between 2002 and 2015.
21. The learned standing counsel for the defendants would further
submit that Smt.P.Bhanumathi, Proprietrix of M/s.Bharani Pictures, is
also no more now, and when the defendants have categorically disputed
that the plaintiff company is the owner of the copyright in respect of the
suit films, the plaintiff has not discharged its initial burden by letting any
oral and documentary evidence for establishing their rights over the films
disclosed in the schedule to the plaint. He would also contend that the
suit is barred by limitation and vague allegations have been made by the
plaintiff in the plaint, which will not entitle the plaintiff to establish the
reliefs sought for in the plaint, which includes the relief of damages.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
22. In support of his contention, the learned standing counsel for
the defendants would rely upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Bihari Chowdhary and another Vs. State of Bihar and
others [(1984) 2 SCC 627] and would submit that issuance of notice
under Section 80 of CPC is mandatory and and therefore, the suit filed
against the defendants, which is deemed to be a State, is not
maintainable.
DISCUSSION
23. The defendants have filed the following documents, which
have been marked as exhibits, to substantiate that the defendants had
legally telecasted the six films out of the 21 films disclosed in the
schedule to the plaint.
Dated Exhibits Nature of document
14.03.2002 Ex.D2 P.Bhanumathi delivered rights through Deed of
Ownership of World Negative Rights agreement with
Mr.R.Parthasarathi Rao
15.10.2008 Ex.D3 TV Satellite Agreement between R.Parthasarathi Rao
and M.Ramakrishnan Reddy
09.03.2010 Ex.D4 All India Telecasting (Doordarshan /Rights) Articles of
Agreement between M.Ramakrishnan Reddy and
Ms.V.S.Ushavani
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Dated Exhibits Nature of document
04.09.2012 Ex.D5 Lease Deed executed by V.Ushavani to K.Sudha Rani
04.10.2014 Ex.D6 Lease Deed executed by V.Ushavani to
K.Ravichadrababu
05.11.2014 Ex.D7 Indemnity Bond executed by K.Ravichadrababu
10.04.2015 Ex.D8 Indemnity Bond executed by K.Sudha Rani
24. Both DW1 and DW2 deposed that the plaintiff company never
became the owner of the copyright over the suit films. They have
categorically stated that Smt.P.Bhanumathi, Proprietrix of M/s.Bharani
Pictures, was the original producer (author of copyright) in respect of the
suit films, and had assigned the rights through Deed of Ownership of
World Negative in favour of Mr.R.Parthasarathi Rao under an agreement
dated 14.03.2002 (Ex.D2). The defendants have also claimed that they
had the legal right to telecast six films out of the 21 films disclosed in the
schedule to the plaint, based on the Indemnity Bonds executed by
K.Ravichadrababu and K.Sudha Rani under the Indemnity Bonds dated
05.11.2014 (Ex.D7) and 10.04.2015 (Ex.D8) respectively. Between
14.03.2002, when the Deed of Ownership of World Negative Rights was
entered into by Smt.P.Bhanumathi, Proprietrix of M/s.Bharani Pictures
Private Limited, in favour of Mr.R.Parthasarai Rao; and 05.11.2014 and
10.04.2015, the date on which Indemnity Bonds were executed in favour
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of the defendants, several agreements have been entered into between
various parties to trace the rights of the defendants, in respect of the six
films out of the 21 films telecasted by them in their TV channels. To
disprove Exs.D2 to D8, the plaintiff has not examined any witness on
their side who was aware of all the facts pertaining to the said films
between 14.03.2002, the date on which Deed of Ownership of World
Negative Rights was entered in favour of Mr.R.Parthasarathi Rao; and
05.11.2014 (Ex.D7) and 10.04.2015 (Ex.D8), the dates on which
Indemnity Bonds were executed in favour of the defendants giving rights
to telecast six films out of the 21 films disclosed in the schedule to the
plaint. Excepting for examining the plaintiff's Finance Manager, as a
witness (PW1), who was not aware as to what had transpired in the year
2002, when Smt.P.Bhanumathi, Proprietrix of M/s.Bharani Pictures
(author of copyright), is alleged to have transferred her rights to
Mr.R.Parthasarathi Rao, no other credible witness was examined on the
side of the plaintiff.
25. Admittedly, the plaintiff company was incorporated in the year
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2015, whereas the suit films were produced and played in the theatre 60
years before. While that being the admitted fact, the plaintiff should
have examined credible additional witnesses, who were working with
M/s.Bharani Pictures in the year 2002 for the purpose of disproving the
defence of the defendants.
26. Under Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, a person, who
desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right which depends
on the existence of facts, which he asserts must prove that those facts
exist. In the instant case, the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that
they are the owner of the copyright in respect of the suit films through
oral and documentary evidence. Based on vague allegations, which are
not supported by any documentary evidence, the plaintiff has filed this
suit. On the contrary, the defendants have filed documentary evidence to
substantiate their claim that they had legally telecast the six films out of
the 21 films disclosed in the schedule to the plaint. They have also
categorically pleaded that they were never involved in the telecast of the
remaining 15 films disclosed in the schedule to the plaint. On the
contrary, as stated supra, the plaintiff has miserably failed to discharge
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
its initial burden of establishing its rights as pleaded in the plaint through
oral and documentary evidence. Therefore, the plaintiff has not proved
the suit claim.
27. During the course of cross-examination of the defendants'
witnesses (DW1), the plaintiff has put a question to DW1, wherein they
themselves have admitted that the first defendant is an innocent
purchaser of the copyright over the suit films. A particular question
raised by the plaintiff's counsel and the answer given by the DW1 is
reproduced hereunder:-
Q29:- Though you are an innocent
purchaser of the copyright in the 6 of the suit
films you are telecasting the same as affected the
exploitation the copyright in the suit film by the
plaintiff.
A. I do not know.
28. The proviso to Section 55(1) of the Copyright Act, 1957, talks
about innocent infringement of the copyright. The proviso to sub-section
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1 of Section 55 provides that if the defendant proves that on the date of
the infringement, he was not aware and had no reasonable ground for
believing that copyright subsisted in the work, then the plaintiff is not
entitled to any remedy other than an injunction in respect of the
infringement and a decree for the whole or part of the profits made by the
defendant from the sale of the infringing copies as the court may fit in
those circumstances.
29. In the instant case, since the plaintiff themselves have admitted
during the course of cross-examination that the first defendant is an
innocent purchaser, they can only seek the relief of injunction and for the
purpose of getting the relief of damages, they will have to prove through
oral and documentary evidence the actual loss they had suffered on
account of the telecast of the six films by the defendants in their TV
Channels. The plaintiff has miserably failed to let in any oral and
documentary evidence that they had suffered losses on account of the
defendants telecasting six of the suit films in their TV channels. On the
other hand, the defendants have produced the documents tracing their
rights from 2002 onwards and they have also claimed their right through
Smt.P.Bhanumathi, Proprietrix of M/s.Bharani Pictures. There is also no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
evidence available on record to prove that the proprietorship concern
M/s.Bharani Pictures was not in existence in the year 2002. The plaintiff
has not only failed (a) to prove the non-existence of proprietorship
concern M/s.Bharani Pictures, represented its Proprietrix
Smt.P.Bhanumathi, from whom the defendants had derived their rights,
but also miserably failed (b) to disprove the contention of the defendants
that the plaintiff cannot claim copyright over the suit films on account of
non-joinder of the necessary as well as on account of non-examination of
a proper witnesses on the plaintiff's side, namely, witnesses, who are well
aware of the transactions pertaining to the suit films between 2002 till
2015, when the plaintiff company was incorporated. As observed earlier,
being the plaintiff, onus is on the plaintiff to discharge its initial burden
of proving the suit claim. The plaintiff has miserably failed to discharge
its initial burden of proving the suit claim as per Section 101 of the
Indian Evidence Act.
30. With the available materials on record in this suit, this Court
cannot determine as to who is the present owner of the copyright in
respect of the suit films, in view of non-joinder of the necessary parties,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
namely, the parties from whom the defendants have claimed rights, and
non-examination of proper witnesses. If at all the plaintiff seeks to claim
such a declaration, they will have to array all the necessary parties as
party defendants in the suit and they will have to examine proper
witnesses, in order to enable them to obtain declaratory relief as sought
for in this suit. Therefore, the relief of declaration of copyright in favour
of the plaintiff over the suit films as prayed for in the plaint cannot be
granted by this Court.
31. It is also to be noted that the defendants had telecast the six
films out of the 21 suit films in the year 2014 itself. Since then, the said
films were never telecast again. The said fact is also not disproved by
the plaintiff through oral and documentary evidence. The question of
limitation is also a matter of concern, as the suit was filed only in the
year 2019 after more than the period of three years from the dates when
six of the suit films were telecasted by the defendants in their TV
channels. Since there is no plea taken in the written statement filed by
the defendants raising the plea of limitation and since this Court had also
not framed the issue of limitation, this Court is not inclined to give its
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
finding with regard to limitation in this judgment.
32. Insofar as permanent injunction prayer sought for by the
plaintiff in the plaint is concerned, since the defendants have stopped
telecasting the suit films and they have also not claimed any right over
the suit films excepting for the six of the suit films, the relief of
permanent injunction sought for by the plaintiff cannot be granted
against the defendants, as it will be redundant and of inconsequence.
33. Two tests have been laid down for determining the question
whether a particular party is a necessary party to a proceeding; (i) there
must be a right to some relief against such party in respect of the matter
involved in the proceeding in question; and (ii) it should not be possible
to pass an effective decree in the absence of such a party. In the instant
case, the defendants had derived their rights originally from
Smt.P.Bhanumathi, Proprietrix of M/s.Bharani Pictures, who, they claim,
had assigned the copyright in the year 2002 itself. The plaintiff is a
company incorporated only in the year 2015. Apart from producing the
assignment document, through which Smt.P.Bhanumathi has assigned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the rights, the defendants have also produced the documents through
which they have traced their rights. The said documents have been
marked as exhibits. Despite having the knowledge of the defendants'
contentions, the plaintiff has neither arrayed the necessary parties, from
whom the defendants had derived their rights, nor have they examined
any proper witness, who had the knowledge of Smt.P.Bhanumathi's
rights. But, instead, they have examined only the Finance Manager of
the plaintiff's company, which was incorporated only in the year 2015,
much after the date of the documents, through which, the defendants
have claimed their rights to telecast the six films out of the 21 suit films.
As stated supra, the plaintiff, having not arrayed the necessary parties
and having not examined them as a witness, even if a decree is passed as
prayed for in the plaint, it will be an ineffective decree, which cannot be
executed in the absence of the necessary parties, which is required for the
purpose of effective adjudication of the suit and for its enforceability.
The reliefs sought for in the plaint against the defendants who do not
have any contractual relationship with the plaintiff cannot be granted for
non-joinder of necessary parties. The necessary parties are the parties
from whom the defendants claim to have derived rights to telecast the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
movies.
34. Eventhough the learned standing counsel for the defendants
had raised the plea of non-maintainability of the suit for not satisfying
the mandatory requirements of Section 80 CPC, the said contention is not
being considered by this Court, since the defendants have not taken such
a plea in their written statements and no issues were also framed with
regard to the same by this Court.
35. In the result, issues framed by this Court are answered in the
following manner:-
Issue (i):-
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of
declaration in respect of the suit films?
The suit filed by the plaintiff is an action in personam, as the grievance
of the plaintiff is only against the defendants and the declaratory relief
sought for by the plaintiff is an action in rem, that is, against the public at
large. Being an action in personam, with the available evidence on
record, the relief of declaration in respect of the suit films cannot be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
granted by this Court.
Issue (ii):-
Whether the defendants have telecast the suit films
after receiving the Indemnity Bond from the
authorized owner?
Yes, the defendants have legally telecast the six films out of the 21 films
disclosed in the schedule to the plaint in their TV channels by virtue of
Indemnity Bonds from authorized owners. No contra evidence has also
been produced by the plaintiff to disprove the documents marked on the
side of the defendants, by which, the defendants have claimed the rights.
Issue (iii):-
Whether the suit is maintainable without any proof
of authorization vested with the Private Limited
Company while the movie was produced by
M/s.Bharani Pictures, represented by its Proprietor
Smt.P.Bhanumathi through a Deed of Ownership of
world negative rights assigned by her to the third
party during her life time?
This suit has to be dismissed for lack of credible oral and documentary
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
evidence and for non-joinder of necessary parties.
Issue (iv):-
Whether the plaintiff has a valuable copyright over
the suit schedule movie to restrain the defendants
from telecasting the movie in any manner?
The plaintiff has not proved that the copyright is vested with them in
respect of the suit films and in view of the fact that the defendants had
telecasted the six out of the 21 suit films listed out in the schedule to the
plaint, that too, in the years 2014, the consequential relief of permanent
injunction sought for by the plaintiff cannot be granted.
Issue (v):-
Whether the defendants are liable to pay any
damages to the plaintiff and what relief the parties
are entitled to?
When the plaintiff has not been able to prove through oral and
documentary evidence that they are the owner of the copyright over the
suit films, they are not entitled to claim any damages from the defendants
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
for the alleged loss suffered by them.
34. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this suit and
accordingly, this suit is dismissed. No costs.
01.03.2024
Index: Yes/no
Speaking order/non-speaking
Neutral citation : Yes/no
rkm
Plaintiff's witness:
Mr.Ramakrishna Bhatt - PW1
Documents exhibited by the Plaintiff:
Dated Exhibits Nature of document
25.03.1948 Ex.P1 Photocopy of the Deed of Partnership executed
between Smt.Paluvai Bhanumathi and Paluvai
Ramakrishna Rao dated 25.03.1948.
17.08.1970 Ex.P2 Photocopy of the Partnership Deed executed between
P.S.Ramakrishna Rao, P.Bhanumathi & P.R.Bharani
dated 17.08.1970
Ex.P3 Certified copy of the Censor Certificate issued by the
Central Board of Film Censor
27.11.1986 Ex.P4 Photocopy of the Partnership Deed executed between
P.R.Bharani and P.Bhanumathi dated 27.11.1986
25.01.2005 Ex.P5 Photocopy of the Partnership Deed executed between
P.R.Bharani and P.Bhanumathi, Bridget Paluvai,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Dated Exhibits Nature of document
Meenakshi Paluvai and Venkatesh Paluvai, dated
25.01.2005.
13.01.2006 Ex.P6 Photocopy of the Deed of Partnership executed
between Dr.Paluvai R.Bharani, Bridget Bharani
Paluvai, Dr.Meenakshi Bharani Paluvai and Venkatesh
Bharani Paluvai, dated 13.01.2006
04.01.2015 Ex.P7 Photocopy of the Reconstitution Deed executed
between Dr.Paluvai R.Bharani, Bridget Bharani
Paluvai, Dr.Meenakshi Bharani Paluvai and Venkatesh
Bharani Paluvai, M/s.Bharani Hospital Private Limited,
Ramakrishna & Bhanumathi Family Trust and
Mrs.Radhika Kylasam
22.04.2015 Ex.P8 Photocopy of the Certificate of Incorporation of
M/s.Bharani Pictures Private Limited, dated
22.04.2015
17.08.2016 Ex.P9 Certified copy of the paper publication in Telugu daily
Andhra Prabha havng circulation in the State of
Andhra Pradesh and Telengana, dated 17.08.2016
28.08.2016 Ex.P10 Photocopy of the letter issued by the plaintiff to the
defendants dated 28.08.2016
28.02.2019 Ex.P11 Office copy of the legal notice issued by the plaintiff's
counsel along with acknowledgment card dated
28.02.2019
06.03.2019 Ex.P12 Photocopy of the Film Chamber of Commerce
Certificate issued by the South Indian Film Chamber of
Commerce dated 06.03.2019
16.03.2019 Ex.P13 Photocopy of the Resolution passed at the meeting of
the Board of Directors dated 16.03.2019
Defendants' witness:
Mr.G.Jagannadha Reddy - DW1
Mr.K.Srinivas - DW2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Documents exhibited by the defendants:
Dated Exhibits Nature of document
14.03.2002 Ex.D2 P.Bhanumathi delivered rights through Deed of
Ownership of World Negative Rights agreement with
Mr.R.Parthasarathi Rao
15.10.2008 Ex.D3 TV Satellite Agreement between R.Parthasarathi Rao
and M.Ramakrishnan Reddy
09.03.2010 Ex.D4 All India Telecasting (Doordarshan /Rights) Articles of
Agreement between M.Ramakrishnan Reddy and
Ms.V.S.Ushavani
04.09.2012 Ex.D5 Lease Deed executed by V.Ushavani to K.Sudha Rani
04.10.2014 Ex.D6 Lease Deed executed by V.Ushavani to
K.Ravichadrababu
05.11.2014 Ex.D7 Indemnity Bond executed by K.Ravichadrababu
10.04.2015 Ex.D8 Indemnity Bond executed by K.Sudha Rani
17.03.2023 Ex.D9 Original authorization letter dated 17.03.2023.
AQJ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
rkm
01.03.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
