A BALAKRISHNAN Vs. R KANAGAVEL KAMARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1st defendant in O.S. No. 1287 of 1999, on the file of V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, is the revision petitioner.

(2.) Plaintiff/1st respondent filed the suit for permanent injunction against defendants restraining them from producing TV Film or Video film or regular movie in any language without the consent and knowledge of the plaintiff in any manner and in any capacity whatsoever about late Kamaraj.

(3.) In the plaint it is said that plaintiff is the grandson of Perunthalaivar Kamaraj and legal heir also. During the last days of that great Leader, plaintiff was looking after him and was assisting him in his day-to-day affairs and personal matters, at Thirumala Pillai Road House, T. Nagar, Chennai-17. Perunthalaivar Kamaraj was a bachelor and hence he adopted the plaintiff as his son. Plaintiff left his Medical College Studies and was helping Mr. Kamaraj. He also performed the last rites of that great Leader and also performed the death ceremony as per Hindu customs. According to plaintiff, he is the heir of that great Leader. It is said that late Kamaraj was a National Leader, and, after his demise, his property was taken over by Government and the sale amount was given to his family members. The reason for filing the suit was that the first defendant is making TV serial about the life history of that great Leader and is also attempting to telecast the same through second defendant, purely on commercial basis. According to plaintiff, defendants will be having sponsorship from many advertising Companies. Since it is done as a business venture, plaintiff has objection for the same. According to plaintiff, defendants have no right to make any film about the National Leader without the knowledge and consent of plaintiff, since they are not competent persons. to take such films. They should also get permission from plaintiff. It is said that one V.G.P. and Manian Creations took video film about Kamaraj, and plaintiff filed in O.S.No. 8018 of 1992 for injunction, and the suit was decreed in his favour.