PALAKURTHU LAKSHMI GANAPATHI RAO Vs. MANISHA VIDEO VISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INTRODUCTION: - The plaintiff in O. S. No. 1/89 on the file of District judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, is the appellant and defendants 1 and 2 in the said suit are the respondent herein. For the purpose of convenience, the parties would be referred to as the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2. The plaintiff filed the suit under Section 62 of the copy-right Act, 1957, for declaration that he is the copyright holder of the Telugu feature film Paramanandayya Sishula Katha and also for the relief of mandatory injunction directing defendants 1 and 2 to surrender and deliver the material relating to the film i. e. , 3/4th U matic cassettes, 1/2 VHS video cassettes, video gram, Discs, tapes, etc. , and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, etc. , from over exploiting the plaintiffs right over the said picture and also claiming damages of Rs. 1,00,000 and for accounts. The Trial Court recorded the evidence of P. W. 1, D. Ws. 1 and 2, and marked Exs. A-l to A-10 and Exs. B-1 and B-2, and, ultimately, decreed the suit granting the relief of declaration, perpetual injunction and mandatory injunction as prayed for and also further directed that the relief of accounts to be settled by way of a separate application and dismissed the suit relating to the claim of the relief of damages and also directed the parties to bear their own costs. Appellant herein the plaintiff aggrieved by that portion of negativing the relief of granting damages had preferred the present appeal.

(2.) SUBMISSIONS of Shri 4 Chittoori Srinivas, the Counsel representing the appellant-plaintiff: the learned Counsel representing the appellant-plaintiff had taken this Court through the respective pleadings of the parties, the issues settled and the findings recorded by the trial Court and would contend that having recorded positive findings in relation of other issues, negativing the relief of damages cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel also would submit that the learned Judge having observed that the action of defendants 1 and 2 in taking video films is nothing but infringement of copyright of the plaintiff should have awarded damages of Rs. 1,00,000 as prayed for instead of dismissing the claim. The learned Counsel also made certain submissions relating to the relief of accounts and the relief of damages which had been prayed for. The learned Counsel also would contend that non-granting of the costs in the facts and circumstances also is not justifiable. The learned Counsel placed reliance on certain decisions in this regard.

(3.) SUBMISSIONS of Shri Laxminarayana Reddy, the Counsel representing Respondents 1 and 2/defendants 1 and 2: sri Laxminarayana Reddy, the learned Counsel representing sri Praveen Kumar, the Counsel on record for respondents 1 and 2/defendants 1 and 2 in the suit, would maintain that the learned Judge recorded reasons in detail and ultimately, negatived the relief of damages. The learned Counsel also would submit that as far as the at her findings are concerned, they had attained finality inasmuch as no separate appeal was preferred by the defendants 1 and 2. The learned Counsel also would further maintain that awarding of costs is within the discretion of the Court and when the Trial Court had exercised the discretion and had disallowed the costs, the same need not be disturbed in this appeal. Submissions we made that before the Trial Court no material had been placed to assess the damages, in any way.