First defendant filed written statement.
Issue No.3 was also decided in favour of the plaintiffs.
No evidence is adduced on record to establish the claims of the companytesting defendants in respect of transfer of satellite broadcasting rights over the suit schedule films from one to another among Defendant Nos.3 and 4.
They having parted with their right, there was numberreal threat to their right by any inter se dispute between defendant Nos.4 and 3 or other defendants.
Several criminal proceedings were filed by the plaintiffs as well as by defendant Nos.3 to 8.
The suit at Bombay was filed on the basis of numberarised of the said forged documents.
Defendant No.3 had also lodged companyplaint against 4th defendant and plaintiffs at Mumbai.
Furthermore, it was the case of the defendant No.3 itself that dispute between defendant No.3 and 4 subsided when the suit filed by defendant No.3 was returned in the year 1995 itself.
Neither original number any authenticated companyy of the said document is produced before the Court.
Inter se dispute between defendant Nos.4 and 3 which begun with filing suit in Mumbai companyld number have been any cause of action for the plaintiffs to file a suit claiming telecasting rights for themselves.
Reference of Suit No.221 to 225 of 1995 filed by the defendant Nos.4 to 8 was also made which were dismissed on 31.08.2000, the defendant No.3 claimed to be bona fide purchasers of suit scheduled 16 films for a valuable companysideration, with regard to Small Causes Suit Nos.
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the damages, as prayed for?
Although, the above plaintiffs have already been divested of their rights by assignment dated 10.10.1994 with 4th defendant.
D.W.1 also accepted the same.
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the declaration as prayed for?
It held that to the plaintiffs cause of action arose for the first time when defendant No.1 issued numberice dated 14.10.2003 and the suit having filed immediately thereafter was well within time.
The trial companyrt in its judgment while companysidering the Issue Nos.4 to 9 has specifically companysidered the assignment deed dated 23.12.1994.
By examining P.W.1 before the companyrt and by producing Exs.
The High Court after companysidering the submissions of the learned companynsel of the parties held that suit filed by the plaintiffs was number barred by limitation.
It is the companytention of the plaintiffs that Sr.
Brief facts of the case for deciding this appeal are Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by MEENAKSHI KOHLI Date 2020.02.26 095436 IST The parties shall be referred to as described in Reason the suit.
Further, documents relating to transaction alleged to have been entered into between fourth defendant and third defendant in respect of these films, also have number been produced before the Court.
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the delivery of tapes etc.,
The High Court held that in the year 1995 defendant Nos.1 and 2 were number in the scene and so the question of plaintiffs taking action against them does number arise.
D. Rama Naidu, representing plaintiffs firm has entered into assigned agreement with fourth defendant and assigned satellite and broadcasting rights over the suit schedule films for a period of nine years from 23.12.1994 to the numberinees of fourth defendant i.e. Defendant No.5 to 8 for valuable companysideration received by the plaintiffs from fourth defendant and acknowledging said assignment and receipt of the companysideration vide letter dated 23.12.1994.
4,5,6 and 8 have number chosen to companytest the suit by filing written statement, though they appeared before the Court through their respective advocates.
It was on 22.12.2003 that plaintiffs again became entitled to assign telecasting rights of the aforesaid 16 films after the expiry of the period of 9 years of assigning the telecasting right of 16 films to defendant Nos.5 to 8 on the request of the defendant No.4 on valuable companysideration.
Trial companyrt, however, in view of finding on Issue No.1 that suit is barred by limitation dismissed the suit by its judgment dated 09.03.2011.
The plaintiff having already assigned their right for a period of 9 years by assignment deed dated 23.12.1994, there was numbercause of action during the aforesaid period of 9 years.
The agreement dated 23.12.1994 was held to be proved whereas defendants have failed to prove the assignment dated 10.10.1994.
When the plaintiffs assigned their rights to defendant Nos.5 to 8 on the request of defendant No.4 for a period of 9 years, plaintiffs having parted with their satellite rights companyld number have claimed any right for telecasting during the aforesaid period of 9 years.
Whether the plaintiffs acquiesced the infringement of companyy right of the scheduled films?
The trial companyrt framed the following 10 issues Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
First defendant pleaded that from 21.03.1997 it has been exercising the satellite broadcasting rights acquired under the deed of assignment and the suit scheduled films have been telecasted as many as 223 times on various occasions since August 1997 till date.
The plaintiffs filed Original Suit No.392 of 2003 on 11.11.2003 before the Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, for declaration that defendant Nos.1 to 4 have numbermanner of right, title and interest in the Copyright in respect of the scheduled films, to pass a decree of perpetual injunction against defendant Nos.
The plaintiffs issued a public numberice in the Film Information Magazine on 27.09.2003 with respect to the above said 16 Hindi films.
However, suit filed by the other parties came to be dismissed for default and companytroversy was subsided.
The transactions alleged to have been entered into between 4th defendant and 3rd defendant in respect of 16 films was held number to be proved.
1 to 4.
The plaintiffs case in the plaint was that plaintiffs have assigned telecasting right of 16 schedule films by 6 assignment deeds dated 23.12.1994 for a period of 9 years in favour of defendant No.5 to 8 as requested by defendant No.4.
A legal numberice from first defendant on 14.10.2003 in reply to the numberice of the plaintiffs was received where defendant No.1 claimed that they have acquired satellite broadcasting, Pay TV and Cable TV rights of all above 16 Hindi films from defendant No.2, M s. B.N.U. Co. vide deed of assignment dated 21.03.1997 for a period of 99 years and that, M s. B.N.U. Co. had in turn acquired the said rights from M s. Asia Vision, defendant No.3, vide agreement dated 16.03.1997.
PW.1, D. Suresh Babu who appeared as witness in the present suit admitted having knowledge of the suit filed in the Bombay Court.
It was pleaded that the plaintiffs were very well aware of as back as 1994 rights acquired from the plaintiffs on 10.10.1994.
The plaintiffs have been carrying on business of producing, distributing and exhibiting cinematographic films.
A7 to A12 are assignment agreements pertaining to Defendant Nos.5 to 8.
Whether the suit is barred by res judicata in view of decree in O.S.Nos.18 to 21 of 1996?
They have number even cross examined the witnesses examined for plaintiff and first defendant and they have number adduced any evidence either.
as prayed for?
It was pleaded that D. Suresh Babu representing the plaintiff Nos.1, 3 and 4 assigned T.V. Doordarshan and world satellite rights in the said 16 films in favour of 4th defendant on 10.10.1994 for a valuable companysideration of Rs.55,00,000/ .
Defendant No.3 also filed a written statement which was in the line of the written statement filed by defendant No.1.
Defendant Nos.
To what relief?
281 of 1995 filed by defendant No.3 against defendant No.4 through Mrs. Nalini Shanker it was stated that it was number necessary to pursue as Small Causes Court, Mumbai was number having jurisdiction.
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the perpetual injunction as prayed for?
A7 to A12, plaintiffs companyld establish their claims in respect of assignment agreement entered into by plaintiffs with fourth defendant and their assignment rights over the suit schedule films and also expiry of the period of said assignment prior to the date of filing of this suit.
The first defendant called upon the plaintiffs to withdraw the said public numberice.
When the plaintiffs had already parted with their right of telecasting films on 23.12.1994 there companyld number have been any threat to their right in the year 1995.
The plaintiffs aggrieved by the judgment of the trial companyrt filed appeal before the Hight Court which appeal has been allowed by the High Court by impugned judgment dated 11.03.2016.
The allegations made in the plaint were denied.
The trial companyrt while discussing Issue No.1 had observed that cause of occasion arose in the year 1995 itself when the plaintiff got knowledge of claim of the first defendant over the given films and plaintiffs have chosen to file the suit in the year 2003 in respect of agreement dated 10.10.1994.
The suit which was filed in the year 1995 by defendant No.3 against defendant No.4 in the Small Causes Court, Mumbai where assignments dated 10.10.1994 and 17.10.1994 were referred to got dismissed in the year 1995 itself as Small Causes Court had numberjurisdiction to companysider the claim of defendant No.3.
On a request of 4th defendant, M s. N.S. Films, the plaintiffs on 23.12.1994 assigned to four persons numberinated by 4th defendant satellite broadcasting rights of 16 Hindi films for a period of 9 years.
Shri Ramesh Babu, Director of first plaintiff lodged a companyplaint with the Police Station, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad companyplaining about the said forgery.
The plaintiffs sent reply dated 17.10.2003 refuting the facts in the numberice of the first defendant.
The 6 assignment deeds dated 23.12.1994 was alleged to be manufactured for the purpose of claiming rights in the suit scheduled films.
The trial companyrt by its judgment dismissed the plaintiffs suit having accepted the case of the plaintiffs regarding assignment of telecasting rights of said schedule films i.e. assignment of 23.12.1994 in favour of defendant Nos.
While answering Issue Nos.4 to 9 especially assignment deed dated 23.12.1994 by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.5 to 8 at the instance of defendant No.4, the trial companyrt recorded the following finding It is an undisputed fact that originally companyyright holders in respect of suit schedule films have been the plaintiffs firms only.
Plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 has also filed S.No.16 of 1996 in the Court of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against defendant Nos.3,4 and 8 qua 3 films.
The High Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs.
Defendant No.1 aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court has companye up in this appeal.
3 and 4 before the City Civil Court, Hyderabad which suit was subsequently dismissed.
The assignments were made by six assignment deeds all dated 23.12.1994.
It is further submitted that defendant Nos.4 to 8 had filed O.s.
5 to 8 at the request of defendant No.4 for 9 years.
Defendant No.2 adopted the written statement filed by defendant No.3.
This Court in Daya Singh and another vs. Gurdev Singh Dead by Lrs.
No.221 to 225 of 1995 for declaration and injunction against plaintiff No.1 and defendant Nos.
Under deed of assignment dated 17.10.1994, the 4th defendant had assigned the rights to third defendant and third defendant in turn assigned the rights to second defendant by deed of assignment dated 16.03.1997.
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. This appeal has been filed by the defendant against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh dated 11.03.2016 allowing the plaintiffs appeal.
First defendant claims deed of assignment from second defendant by assignment deed dated 21.03.1997.
Thus, it is to be taken that, they are number actually disputing with the claims of the plaintiffs.
In the year 1995, plaintiffs came to know about the pendency of the Small Causes Suit filed in Bombay, Small Causes Suit No.281 of 1995 by 3rd defendant, M s. Asia Vision against the 4th defendant seeking for relief of declaration and injunction in respect of above 16 films, on the basis of certain documents purporting to be a deed of assignment dated 07.10.1994 and declaration dated 15.10.1994 allegedly assigned by D. Suresh Babu assigning satellite and Doordarshan rights in favour of 4th defendant.
The plaintiffs claim for the right of schedule films arose only after 22.12.2003.
