CHATRAPATHY SHANMUGHAM Vs. S RANGARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit is one for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the copy right of the play 'Naai Vaal' and for permanent injunction.

(2.) The plaint averments are that the plaintiff is the original author of a play titled 'Naai Vaal', which is his original creation. The script of the play was approved by the Commissioner of Police, Madras, in his Ref. No. Na. Ka. 2714/132376/82-83, dated 4-1-1984 and the play was staged at 'Swami Sankaradas Kalai Arangam', Madras on the asupices of Annai Sathya Nataka Manram, presented by Vetrivel Kalaikuzhu on 8-3-1984. The plaintiff claims that he is the absolute owner of the copyright of the said story and the script. The 1st defendant has produced a Cinematograph film titled 'Ore Oru Gramathile', in Tamil, directed by the 3rd defendant. It is stated that the said film is a clear violation of the copyright of the plaintiff's play. The story of the said film is purported to have been written by the 2nd defendant and the theme of story of the said film is the same as that of the plaintiff's play 'Naai Vaal', as may be seen from the approved script of the plaintiff. The plaintiff came to know of the violation of the copyright of his drama by a person, who had seen the play and informed the plaintiff and whereupon the plaintiff had seen the film and came to the conclusion that the defendants have violated the copyright of the plaintiff. The plaintiff also made a claim to the collections and earnings made by the defendants from exhibiting the said film. The plaintiff's notice dated 1-10-1990 was not complied with by the defendant and hence, the suit.

(3.) The 1st defendant, in his written statement, had stated that he is the producer of the film 'Ore Oru Gramathile', and the certificate for the said film was issued as early as 7-12-1987 and ever before the said film was realised, certain writ petitions were filed before this Court, alleging that the story of the film was against certain sections of the Society and it was also against the reservation policy, adopted by the Government of India and Government of Tamilnadu and writ petitioners sought for a ban against the release of the film and also for the revocation of the Censor Certificate granted to the film. The defendants contested those writ petitions and the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petitions, but, on appeal, a Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ petitions and revoked the Censor Certificate. As against the same, the 1st defendant preferred an appeal before the Honourable Supreme Court, which by its judgment dated 30-3-1989 set aside the order of the Division Bench and permitted the release of the film and the film was released all over the State on 19-5-1989. It is stated that the theme of the film was sensational and due to the controversies raised by the filing of the writ petitions, the proceedings had attracted wide publicity during 1988-89. Further, the film was also given a national award by his Excellency. The President of India and the story of the film and the controversies raised therein were all published in various newspapers and magazines and had received wide publicity. Clippings from the film were also exhibited at that time of presentation of the National Award and they were also telecast by Doordarshan. In the said circumstances, the plaintiff's claim that he came to know about the story of the 1st defendants film only in January 1990 cannot be believed. It is also to be noted that though the plaintiff claims that he came to know of the film 1990, he had instituted the suit only in the year 1993. Apart from denying any violation of the plaintiff's right, the defendants contend that the inordinate delay in filing the suit would disentitle him from seeking any remedy before this Court. It is further stated that the film was released all over the State of Tamilnadu on 19-5-1989 and he had also assigned distribution rights and video rights to various 3rd parties even before the competition of the film. In the said circumstances, the plaintiff cannot seek the relief of restraint after so many years and after the exploitation of the film. It is stated that the film 'Ore Oru Gramathile' was produced by the 1st defendant and the story was written by the 2nd defendant and the film was directed by the 3rd defendant. The defendants did not accept that the film is in clear violation of the copyright of the plaintiff's play. There is absolutely no similarities between the story of the play 'Naai Vaal' and the story of the film. The story in the film deals with the life of a lady IAS Officer, who was born in a family of forward caste. During her service, it was found that her father with the assistance of a Tahsildar, who was a close family friend had obtained a Community Certificate as though she belonged to one of the Schedule Caste. When this fact was found out, she was prosecuted. Though she pleaded to the court that it was the circumstances and the reservation policy of the Government that forced/her/her father to obtain a false certificate. She nevertheless accepted her mistake and was punished by the Court. On the other hand, the plaintiff's play deals with a boy belonging to a particular community, joining a private firm after changing his caste and upon being condemned by his father, he became a priest in a temple, where also he incurred the displeasure of the trustees of the temple and was forced to quit the job. It is stated that the script of the 1st defendant and the plaintiff's play would differ in all material particulars and there is no similarity between the two and the claim of the plaintiff that the defendants have infringed his copy right has no basis. It is also stated that there is nothing a common between the plaintiff' play and the film and prayed for dismissal of the suit.