Madras High Court
Mr.K.Rangadoss vs Lyca Productions on 13 February, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 MAD 142
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
C.S.No.853 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 29.01.2020
PRONOUNCED ON : 13.02.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Civil Suit No.853 of 2017 in
A.Nos.1092 of 2017 and 8441 of 2018
Mr.K.Rangadoss ... Plaintiff
Vs
1.Lyca Productions,
Production Company,
No.55, 2nd Floor,
Vijaya Raghava Road,
T.Nagar,
Chennai – 600 017.
2.Mr.A.R.Murugadoss
3.South Indian Film Writer's
Association,
Rep. By its General Secretary,
L-23, Flat-1, 2nd Floor, LIG,
Bharathidasan Colony,
K.K.Nagar,
Chennai – 78.
4.Mrs.Surekha Konidela
5.Mr.Ram Charan Teja ... Defendants
Prayer:- This Civil Suit is filed under Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules, 1956
read with Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C., 1908, r/w Sections 55 and 61 of the Copy
1/33
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.S.No.853 of 2017
Rights Act, 1957, for the following reliefs:-
"1.Declare that the Tamil Feature film "Kathi" produced
by the first and second defendant is the replica of the plaintiff's
registered script "Seergazhi Pakkam Maathaanam" and also
declare the story and script of the feature film is plaintiff's
script and to declare the letter dated 21.11.2014 issued by the
third defendant as null and void.
2.(a)Directing the defendants 1 and 2 for rendition of
accounts of the profits made by the film entitled "Kathi"
produced by the 1st defendant and directed by the 2nd
defendant including the profits earned through box office,
satellite rights, remake rights and every other profit derived by
exploiting the film and
(b)Directing the defendants 1,2, 4 for rendition of
accounts of the profits made by the film entitled "Kaidhi
No.150" which is a remake of the Tamil film "Kathi", including
the profits earned through box office, satellite rights, remake
rights and every other profit derived by exploiting the film;
3.For an injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2,
their servants and agents from assigning any further remake
rights of the feature film entitled "Kathi" and from their
committing any act of infringement or conversion of plaintiff's
copyright in his work entitled "Seergazhi Pakkam
Maathaanam";
4.For payment to the plaintiff by way of damages and
compensation,the profit made by the defendants 1, 2, 4 and 5
2/33
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.S.No.853 of 2017
at the rate of fifty percentage, out of the total profit made by
the film "Kathi" including the profits earned through box office,
satellite rights, remake rights and every other profit derived by
exploiting the film, profit made from the remake rights of the
film "Kathi" and the profit from the film titled "Kaidhi No.150"
which is a remake of the Tamil film "Kathi" including the profits
earned through box office, satellite rights, remake rights and
every other profit derived by exploiting the film or such portion
thereof as may be determined by this Hon'ble Court,
5.Fort costs of the suit;"
For Plaintiff :Mr.Mr.T.Mathi
For Defendants 1 and 2 :Mr.P.L.Narayanan, for
Mr.C.Selvakumar
For 3rd Defendant :Set exarte
For Defendants 4 & 5 :Mr.C.Seethapathy
JUDGMENT
Suit filed for declaration, injunction, rendition of accounts and damages. The plaintiff (Cinema Script Writer) has filed the suit alleging that, in the year 2010, he contacted one Ragunath who was an Associate of the 2nd Defendant (A.R.Murugadoss, Film Director and Script Writer) and gave his script titled "Seergazhi Pakkam Maathaanam" (hereinafter referred as “SPM”). The said Ragunath passed on the script to 2nd defendant and the 2nd defendant without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff stolen the character of “Vennila P.hd” in his 3/33 http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.853 of 2017 script “SPM” and made a Tamil feature film “Ezham Arivu”. The plaintiff was shocked when he saw the replica of character name “Vennilla P.hd” in the film “Ezham Arivu”. Being aggrieved by this incident, the plaintiff to avoid further plagiarism registered his script “SPM” in the South Indian Film Writer's Association (3rd Defendant), in which, the plaintiff is a member since, 2006. The script was registered on 10.04.2013 along with another script “Katre Nillu Kavithai Sollu”.
2.On 29.10.2014, he happened to see the Tamil feature film “Kathi” produced by Lyca Production (1st defendant) and directed by A.R.Murugadoss (second defendant). To his utter shock and surprise, the story of the Tamil feature film “Kathi” was the replica of his story script registered under the title “SPM”. The story line of both the scripts are one and the same. So, the plaintiff lodged complaint with the 3rd defendant. The complaint was rejected by the third defendant vide letter dated 21.11.2014 informing the plaintiff that there is no similarity between the plaintiff's script and the feature film “Kathi”.
3.The third defendant did not compare both the scripts before concluding that there is no similarity. Hence, the plaintiff has prayed to declare the third defendant letter dated 21.11.2014 as null and void.
4.Narrating the story line of his script “SPM”, the plaintiff has averred that he registered his script on 10.04.2013. The synopsis of the second defendnat 4/33 http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.853 of 2017 script “Neelam” was registered on 04.09.2013 and the full script was registered on 07.03.2014. The 2nd defendant claim that his story script “Neelam” is the basis for the feature film “Kathi”. However, the script of “SPM” and “Neelam” are one and the same. Since, the plaintiff's registeration is prior to the 2nd defendant, the plaintiff is the exclusive proprietor of the script. Therefore, he pray for a declaration that the feature film “Kathi” produced by defendants 1 and 2 is replica of his registered script “SPM”.
5.In the plaint, it is averred that the defendants 1 and 2 have made only few modifications here and there in the script, in order to create an impression that it was their original script. However, a comparative study of the scripts will prove that the story line, concept, screen play and characters are exact replica of the plaintiff's script “SPM”.
6.The defendants released the film “Kathi” in the month of October 2016 and has earned huge profit. The Telugu remake right has been sold to the defendants 4 and 5 and they in turn, have produced and released the movie “Kaidhi No.150”. Since the defendants 1, 2, 4 and 5 have made huge profit by infringing the plaintiff's story script, he has sought rendition of accounts and 50% share in the profits.
7.The plaintiff prior to this suit has filed O.S.No.318 of 2015 before the III 5/33 http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.853 of 2017 Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai almost for identical relief but withdrawn in view of the present suit which is comprehensive.
8.The first defendant and fourth defendants have filed their written statements. The fifth defendant has adopted the written statement of the 4th defendant. The written statement of the first defendant covers the case of the second defendant also.
9.Gist of the first defendant's written statement:-
The suit is not maintainable. The plaintiff is not the owner of the script in the film “Kathi”. The plaintiff is making a futile attempt to harass the defendants 1 and 2 and enrich himself unjustly by making unruly claim that the movie titled “Ezham Arivu” is based on his script “SPM” and the movie “Kathi” is also replica of his script. This multiple claim based on one story over two movies though the story of “Ezham Arivu” and “Kathi” are totally different, is an evident for his vexatious claim.
10.The plaintiff has not made out any cause of action for filing the above suit. The plaintiff firstly allege infringement of his script by the second defendant in all movies directed by the second defendant. The script of the movie “Kathi” is the story of the second defendant and at no point of time, the second defendant has adopted the story of the plaintiff. There is no similarity between the story 6/33 http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.853 of 2017 script and screenplay of feature film “Kathi” and story script “SPM”. There are hundreds of films and documentaries released in Tamil and other languages touching upon the issue of apathy faced by farmers and suicide committed by the farmers. There are several films touching the issue of agricultural land acquisition by the corporate and the protest by farmers against the take over. This will not render the work of the second defendant violation of infringement of anybody's copyright much less the plaintiff's script “SPM”.
11.The first defendant would further state that as the plaintiff has failed to establish his copy right in respect of his script “SPM” and alleged infringement of that copy right by the defendants 1 and 2. The plaintiff having failed to establish any copy right over his script, he cannot claim infringement of his copy right by the defendants 1 and 2. Therefore the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief. Further defendants 1 and 2 had submits that the film “Kathi” is a exclusive copy right of the defendants 1 and 2 no other person has right over the film “Kathi” and being the absolute owners of the film “Kathi” the defendants 1 and 2 have got every right to remake the film “Kathi” in any language, give satellite rights, licenses, assignment and all other allied transaction of the film “Kathi”. Therefore, no other person including the plaintiff got any right whatsoever to question the rights of the defendants 1 and 2 in respect of the film “Kathi” therefore, he has no rights to restrain the defendants 1 and 2 from dealing with the above said film. 7/33 http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.853 of 2017
12.The defendant has further submitted that the plaintiff earlier filed a suit before the City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.318 of 2015 on the same ground and allowed it to be dismissed as withdrawn. The plaintiff subsequently, cannot sustain a fresh suit based on the same cause of action before the High Court.
12.Extracting the story line of their movie “Kathi” and story line on the plaintiff's script “SPM”, the first defendant would submit that the alleged similarity raised by the plaintiff between his script and the script of the movie “Kathi” are trivial in nature and it cannot be stated that those scenes are exclusive idea and concept of the plaintiff.
13.The defendant's movie “Kathi” deals about suicide committed by the farmers and dubious purchase of cultivable lands by Multi National Company for construction of factory. Whereas, the script of the plaintiff deals with two individuals and why hero became a “Godman”. The plaintiff's script (“SPM”) did not deal with the issue of farmers or water scarcity.
14.The written statement of the fourth defendant:-
The plaintiff earlier filed a suit in O.S.No.318 of 2015 before the III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai against the defendants 1 and 3 based on the same cause of action and withdrew the same on 05.12.2017 without liberty to file fresh suit. Therefore, the present suit is hit by Order II Rule 2 of C.P.C.8/33
http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.853 of 2017
15.The contention of the plaintiff alleging infringement of copyright against the defendants 4 and 5 is not maintainable. The defendants 4 and 5 are the assignees of remake right of the film “Kathi” in Telugu language (“Kaidhi No.150”).
16.The plaintiff claims infringement of his script “SPM” by the defendants 1 and 2 who has produced and directed the Tamil movie Kathi. Whereas, the defendants 4 and 5 have only purchased the remake right of the film “Kathi” in Telugu and therefore, valid right exist on them. They are not necessary parties to the suit. The suit is therefore, suffers misjoinder of parties.
17.None of the allegations made in the plaint are directed against the defendants 4 and 5. Hence, their names have to be struck off from the proceedings. The defendants 1 and 2 had assigned Telugu remake rights of the film 'Kathi' in favour of the defendants 4 and 5. The defendants 4 and 5 have produced Telugu film “Kaidhi No.150” and released on 11.01.2017. The defendants 4 and 5 merely obtained remake of the Tamil feature film “Kathi” and did not commit the act of script copying or illegal uGodman of it. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief against the defendants 4 and 5.
18.Based on the pleadings this Court has framed the following issues on 9/33 http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.853 of 2017 28.06.2019:-
“1.Whether the reliefs sought for against the defendants 4 and 5 herein in the above suit is liable to be dismissed for want of cause of action and barred by limitation ?
2.Whether the plaintiff has got any legal right or owner of alleged copyright over the litrary work “Sirgazhi Pakkam Mathanam” ?
3.Whether there is infringement of the copy rights by the defendants of the plaintiff's script “Sirgazhi Pakkam Mathanam” if the story line, concept, screenplay and characters in the film “Kathi” are exact replica of the plaintiff's script ?
4.Whether the plaintiff has got any alleged right over the Telugu Film “Kaidhi No.150” which was released in January 2017 by the defendants 4 and 5 herein ?
5.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for rendition of accounts of the profits earned through box office, satellite rights, remake rights and every other profit derived by exploiting the film “Kathi” by first defendant and second defendant ?
6.Whether the plaintiff is entiteld for damages and compensation, by the defendants 1,2,4 and 5 at the rate of fifty percentage for infringement of the copy rights ?
7.Whether the plaintiff entitled for any other relief ?”
19.The plaintiff has deposed as P.W.1. Six exhibits were marked as Exs.P.1 10/33 http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.853 of 2017 to P.6. On behalf of the defendants, one K.Sundarrajan, Executive Producer of the first defendant company has been examined as D.W.1 and three exhibits Exs.D.1 to D.3 were marked.
20.Ex.P.1 dated 10.04.2013 is the registered script of “SPM”; Ex.P.2 dated 10.04.2013 is the registration card for the script “SPM” issued by third defendant. Ex.P.3 dated 17.11.2014 is the photocopy of the plaintiff letter to the third defendant intimating them his intention to prefer appeal against the decision that the feature film “Kathi” is not similar to his script “SPM”; Ex.P.4 dated 21.11.2014 is the letter of the third defendant intimating the plaintiff that his complaint was brought to the notice of the second defendant and explanation was called for. The second defendant has informed that story of the movie “Kathi” based on his script “Neelam” registered with the third defendant; Ex.P.5 is the original hand written comparison of 'SPM' script with that of the film 'Kathi' and Ex.P.6 is the Script of film 'Kathi'. Ex.D.1 is the authorization letter given by the first defendant to D.W.1 – Sundararajan to give evidence. Ex.D.2 is the script of feature film “Kathi” and Ex.D.3 is the Censor Board authorised DVD for the Tamil feature film “Kathi”.
21.Before filing the suit, the plaintiff has lodged complaint against the second defendant about the plagiarism before the third defendant. The committee consisting of Mohan Gandhi Raman; Liyakath Ali Khan and K.Guna on examining the script and the movie of 'Kathi' and also comparing the script of the story 'Neelam' written by the second defendant and the script of story 'SPM' written by 11/33 http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.853 of 2017 the plaintiff found that there is no similarity between the movie 'Kathi' and the story of the plaintiff. Ex.P.5 is the written comparison note given by the plaintiff where about 25 incidents are pointed out by the plaintiff. However, the third defendant had rejected the plaintiff claim. Hence, the plaintiff has approached this Court for the relief stated.
22.Before adverting to the merits of the rival claim, it is helpful to extract the story line of the defendant's script “SPM” and the story line of the movie “Kathi”.
23.Story line of the plaintiff script : “SPM”
(i)The story centres around the agrarian village by name “Maathanam” which is near Sirkali town at Kaveri delta region. Two young couple (Sethuraman and Vennila ), (Gopal and Parimala) and nearing 100 years old lady Thirumalai Paati fondly called by the villagers as 'Century Paati' are the main characters. Sethuraman and Parimala are brother and sister. Century paati is their grand mother.
(ii)Sethuraman work in Border Security Force. From Chennai he came to Chidambaram Town to meet Vennila, with whom he was engaged a year ago. By the time, Sethuraman reaches Vennila house, She leaves the home to meet a Godman (samiyar) in a hill near Rasipuram, for her research purpose. Sethuraman follow her and find that she meet Gopalanandha who is living in 12/33 http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.853 of 2017 hideout along with his assistant Yugi Chandran. On seeing Gopalanantha, Sethuraman get angry and fight with him. Vennila puzzled over the outburst of Sethuraman. Sethuraman explains to Vennila the reason.
(iii)A year ago, at Mathanam village, the grand daughter of century paati Parimala (an ultra modern girl) who have admiration to Gopal consent to marry him at the instance of Century paati. She gets engaged to Gopal, who is a graduate but very much interested in agriculture. Gopal is fondly called by his villagers as vivasayee (agriculturist). After engagement, Parimala turns her interest in farming, whereas Gopal leaves the village to Chennai to earn more. Parimala orders for farming tools. At the same time, Gopal father sells the land to a real estate promoter by name Manimaran to buy jewels for Parimala and justifies selling the land saying, so far they were not able to afford to get proper food and were all along suffering to meet the ends. Now the realtor has given 20 lakhs for 4 acres of land, hereafter they can afford to buy Karnataka ponni rice ( high quality rice). Parimala upset over this, writes to Gopal.
(iv)Gopal strongly believe that his father would not have sold the land which is dear to his life. He disbelieve Parimala and writes back to Parimala that his father would not have sold the land and accuse Parimala for spinning story and ploying against his family. Depressed on seeing this letter, despite consolation of her grandmother Century paati, Parimala go to the land of Gopal and commits 13/33 http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.853 of 2017 suicide by immolating herself. Unknowing this, Gopal returns to the village. On knowing that Parimala has committed suicide, he scold his father, renounces, the world and become a Godman adopting the name 'Gopalanantha'.
(v)Sethuraman brother of Parimala is under the impression, Gopal @ Gopalanantha was cause for Parimala's death. To wreck vengeance, he first wanted to disassociate Yugi Chandran from Gopalanantha. Meanwhile, the Police investigating the realtor Manimaran murder by a Godman visit the hill and conduct enquire with all the Godman living in that hill and get their thumb impressions. On seeing this, natives of that hill also force the police to get their impression expecting Government dole. Mean while, Sethuraman abduct Yugi Chandran. Yugi chandran spill beans and confess to Sethuraman and Vennila that he murdered Manimaran since he betrayed his father. Sethuraman also come to know that Gopal is innocent and he is not the cause for his sister’s death.
(vi)Sethuraman, Vennila and Gopal return to the 'Mathaanam' village. Like Taj mahal built in memory of the loved one, Gopal decided to dig a pond. So with the help of 10 village Panchayat leaders and workers of 100 days Employment Scheme, Century paati and Gopal dug a pond on the eve of Sethuraman – Vennila marriage day and name it as ‘Maruthanattu Parimalam‘. The villagers are happy over this and wish them.
14/33 http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.853 of 2017
24.The story line of the feature film “KATHI” is as below:-
In Kolkata, prisoner Kathiresan, a petty criminal, helps the police capture an escaping prisoner Vivek Banerjee but escapes afterwards. He goes to Chennai in order to escape to Bangkok with his friend and fellow-criminal Ravi.
However, he drops this plan after meeting and falling in love with Ankitha, who dupes him into believing that she wants to marry him after realising that he is having a crush on her. Later, Kathir and Ravi notice a doppelgänger of Kathir named Jeevanandam being shot by a group of thugs. They admit him to a hospital, and Kathir decides to impersonate the injured Jeeva to escape from the police. Under the name of Jeeva, Kathir and Ravi enter an old-age home run by Jeeva with the aim of collecting ? 25 lakhs (meant for the inmates of the old-age home) for their Bangkok trip, until he learns about his doppelgänger's mission.
Jeeva is a communist ideologue and post-graduate in hydrology from the arid village of Thanoothu in Tirunelveli district who had discovered groundwater under some lands of the village which could be used as an irrigation source not only for the village, but for the entire Tirunelveli district and the neighbouring Thoothukudi district. However, a greedy MNC owner Chirag cheated the villagers into giving their lands for the construction of a factory. Jeeva gets arrested by the police, and six villagers commit suicide to bring this news to the media forefront and release Jeeva from prison. On learning of the plight of Jeeva and the villagers, Kathir decides to fight for their cause while still under the name of Jeeva. The people of 15/33 http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.853 of 2017 the old home and Kathir go to the jury and try to convince him to go in favour of them, but Kathir starts stating rules and scares the main jury person (whom Chirag had bribed). Kathir then sends a person (disguised as a hairdresser) to Chirag and makes him lay a fingerprint on Chirag's neck. After that, Chirag sends 50 men to kill Kathir, but he soon defeats them. Meanwhile, the real Jeeva gains consciousness and finds himself in the Kolkata prison where Kathir was locked up. With the help of Vivek, who has heard his story and has plans to kill Kathir in revenge for getting him caught and thrown back into prison, he escapes with Vivek's henchmen.
25.Unaware that Jeeva and Vivek's henchmen are headed for Chennai, Kathir makes efforts to convince the media to bring the plight of the villagers to national consciousness, but the media is not interested as they feel it is not a sensational news. A few days later, at the Madras High Court, the judge declares the verdict in favour of Jeeva and the villagers, but adds that Chirag has claimed that certain villagers who are working abroad have shown their support for the factory. If they cannot prove that their support was faked by Chirag within the next five days, the verdict will go in favour of Chirag, and the villagers will lose their lands. Since the villagers, who have denied supporting the factory, are abroad and cannot come to Chennai within five days to rebut Chirag's claims as their passports are held by their contractors, and the verdict is to be decided within five days, Kathir decides to take drastic measures to sensationalise the 16/33 http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.853 of 2017 issue. He, Ankitha, Ravi, and the inmates of the old-age home block water supply to Chennai by sitting on the pipelines which carry water to Chennai from five lakes. With the plight of the Chennaites due to no water supply having gained national attention, Kathir comes out of the pipeline after a few days and highlights the villagers' plight in an emotionally charged speech to the media, which is telecast nationwide and moves many people. By now, Kathir has discovered that Jeeva has escaped and is searching for him.
26.Meanwhile, Jeeva and Vivek's henchmen reach Chennai, but Jeeva is kidnapped by Chirag's henchmen. While in Chirag's custody, he sees Kathir's speech on television and is moved by the efforts made by his doppelgänger to help the villagers. On the night before the verdict, Kathir's bluff is exposed, but Kathir promises the villagers that he will surely help them and tells that Jeeva is alive, and he will rescue Jeeva from Chirag and hand him back over to the villagers with the assurance of a positive verdict. Kathir goes to Chirag's office, where Jeeva is being held. He rescues Jeeva and kills Chirag.
27.The next day, the verdict is declared in favour of Jeeva and the villagers. Kathir, despite his efforts to thwart Chirag and the MNC, does not take part in the ensuing celebrations over the verdict and instead surrenders to the police and returns to the Kolkata prison, but not before promising Ankitha, who has now fallen in love with him, that he will marry her once he is released. 17/33 http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.853 of 2017 (courtesy wikipedia)
28.The plaintiff though alleges that the script of the film “Kathi” is replica of his story “SPM”, he points out only about 25 instances which according to him are similar. In Ex P-5 the plaintiff has compared both the stories and alleged that they are similar, in the following manner:-
Sirkazhi Pakkam Madhanam Kathi
Location: Madhanam Village near Location: Thannuthu Village near
Sirkazhi. Thamirabarani River side.
Retrieving agricultural land which has Retrieving agricultural land which has become barren become barren from mafia Hero: Heros:
Kathiresan – Thief Sethuraman, BSF Police from Kashmir Gopalnatha, B.Sc (Agri)-Farmer Jeevanadam – Expert in Water Management.
Supporting Character: Supporting Character:
Century party and 100 days
employment scheme workers. Elders from old age house
Villan : Villan: Land mafia Shirag
Land mafia Mr.Manimaran
Solution given by the author: Solution given by the author:
India is an Agricultural Country, river, Land and pond should be retrieved land and pond should be preserved. and restored.
End of the story: End of the story:
Land retrieved. New pond dug. Land retrieved. Water drawn from
borewell.
Sethuraman arrives Chennai from Kathiresan from Kolkata reached
18/33
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.S.No.853 of 2017
Sirkazhi Pakkam Madhanam Kathi
kashmir changed train and reached Chennai by train. Chidambaram.
Sethuraman get down at Kathiresan instead of going to Chidambaram without going to his Bangkok, cancel his trip to meet the village madhanam, to meet his would- Heroin. be wife.
Entry of Gopalanatha shown as if, he Entry of Jeevanadam shown with is meditating by closing his eye. closed eyes with bullet injuries. Mr.Manimaran grab the land of 6 Farmers commit suicide to retrieve Gopalanatha. To retrieve the said the land from MNC. land, Parimala commit suicide.
5 land documents were taken to 5 villagers taken signatures in the Vaitheeswaran Temple to be placed at document discretely for purchase of the feet of the idol. their lands.
Gopalanatha, after the loss of Jeevanadham when he was Parimala, hide himself without unconscious and taking treatment for interacting with others. his bullet injury, police arrest him and put him in Kolkata prison, out of site from public because of imprisonment so he can't able to talk with anybody else.
Sethuraman take Parimala with him to Kathiresan slaps his lover, she
the hill, so she complains pain. complains pain.
Due to water scarcity in Madhanam Villagers try to sell his wife's dry land Village, land mafia Mr.Manimaran at Thannudhu village, Jeevanadham attempts to buy the land of tries to prevent it.
Gopalanatha, Parimala tries to prevent it.
Mr.Manimaran, fenced the land which Shirag fence the land which he he purchased at Madhanam village. purchased at Thannuthu Village. Police get finger print of the tribe Mafia Sherk get the finger print of villagers. death person to fabricate document.
Villagers affix their signature
expecting Government aid.
Parimala cry when she come to know Jeevanadham cries when he came to that mafia Mr.manimaran has know that Multi National Company has 19/33 http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.853 of 2017 Sirkazhi Pakkam Madhanam Kathi purchased her future husband's land. purchased Agricultural land. Gopanatha go to chennai for job, due Many villagers go to other state for to water scarcity job since there is no water in their village.
Near Madhanam Puthumaniyar river Near Thannuthu village Thamirabarani flows river flows In Madhanam Village, if dig the pond, In Thannuthu village, if dig the pond, there will be yogi copious underground there will be copious underground water. water.
Chandran kill land mafia Kathiresan kill land mafia Shirag. Mr.Manimaran.
Villagers at Madhanam collect Agricultural tools of Thannuthu agricultural tools. villagers are collected by land mafia Shirag and kept in his godown To dig pond, century patti collect Kathiresan to prevent water supply workers from 10 villages. collect 60 persons.
Sethuraman say that Gopalanatha Villagers want Jeevanatham to come should come back as Farmer. back.
Gopalanatha loves Agriculture, so Kathiresan loves village elders, so
Parimala loves gopal heroin loves kathiresan.
People are happy after goplanatha dug Water flows from borewell. pond in the madhanam village End: People from 10 villagers along End: People wish the Hero with song. with the Panchayat leaders wish the Hero.
29.At the outset, this Court has to record that the above comparison chart provided by the plaintiff and marked as Ex.P.5 is per se, is not the exact version found in the script which are marked as Ex.P.3 and Ex.D.2. Ex.P.5 bristles with irrelevant and improper comparison. Those improper and irrelevant comparisons are :-
20/33
http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.853 of 2017
(i)In the story of “SPM”, Mr.Sethuraman travel in train from Chennai to Chidambaram in the normal course to meet his family members. Whereas, Mr.Kathiresan in “Kathi” is a jailbreaker, escape from Kolkata prison and reach Chennai by train.
(ii) Mr.Sethuraman arrives Chidambaram, as per his plan and it is not a sudden decision as stated by the plaintiff.
(iii) Mr.Gopalnatha meditate by closing his eyes is not similar to Jeevanatham in bed with bullet injury.
(iv) Parimala commit suicide not to save the land grabbed by Mr.Manimaran, as stated in the comparison chart.
(v) In “SPM”, Parimala commit suicide, after receiving letter from Gopal who accuse her for ploying his family.
(vi) Placing the documents at the feet of Vaitheeswaran Temple idol is not similar to the documents obtained illegally by the land mafia in “Kathi” movie.21/33
http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.853 of 2017
(vii) Mr.Gopalnatha hide himself is not comparable to the person in imprisonment. The earlier one is voluntary and later is by compulsion.
(viii) Parimala complaining to Mr.Sethuraman about her pain is not similar to Heroine complaining the hero for slapping her.
(ix) Madhanam Village is not hit by drought. Even according to the plaintiff's script, in the introduction itself he indicates that the village is fertile and green, river Cauvery though shrink flows.
(x) Madhanam Village is not barren as stated by the plaintiff in the comparison chart or Ex.P.5. In fact according to the script, villagers are involved in farming. Centry patti carry tools and go to field. There is also a scene of harvest and paddy being delivered at the house of century patti.
(xi) Scene of fencing the land or the Police taking finger print will not make the story “Kathi” replica of plaintiff's script “SPM”. The context and sequence leading to the said scene are entirely different.
(xii) Gopal leave the village not because of water scarcity, there is a dialogue in scene No.13 between the laundryman and Gopal. Gopal says that, he 22/33 http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.853 of 2017 is going to Chennai to make money to be happy in life and he will come to Village at the time of sowing.
(xiii)The plaintiff, in the comparison chart Ex.P.5 says, Thannuthu Village is in Tuticorin District and Thamirabarani river is running in Tuticorin District. In fact, as per the script of “Kathi”, there is a dialogue between the Collector and his P.A, wherein, the P.A. informs the Collector viennar village is in Ramanathapuram District.
(xiv)Murder of Mr.Manimaran by Yugi Chandran is to settle personal score. Whereas, the murder of Shirag by Kathiresan in 'Kathi' movie is for the villagers in general.
(xv)The presence of agriculture tools in the houses of Madhanam Village is compared with the collection of agriculture tools by the villan in his godown. The plaintiff tries to compare the presence of agriculture tools in each house kept for agriculture with that of collecting the agriculture tool by one person in his godown as an exhibition material. There is no similarity or identity in this.
30.None of the above similarities alleged by the plaintiff is remotely connected to the script “SPM”. Furthermore, this Court finds that the version in the comparative chart itself is distorted one and not as found in the script - 23/33 http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.853 of 2017 Ex.P.1. It is obvious that the plaintiff has tinkered the story in the comparative chart to show as if there are similarities in the story line of “Kathi”.
31.The learned counsel for the plaintiff would submit that the script “Neelam” which was later developed to feature film “Kathi” though was in the possession of the second defendant, he has not produced it to the Court even after the same was asked to be produced and D.W.1 promised in the witness box to produce the same in the subsequent hearing. Therefore, he contend that adverse inference should be drawn.
32.It is further contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the script of “SPM” has to be compared with the alleged script of second defendant's “Neelam” which was later developed into the film “Kathi”. Even assuming that the script “Neelam” was the replica or the script “SPM” unless and until the script of feature film “Kathi” is replica of similar to the story of “SPM”, the plaintiff has no cause of action to sustain the suit. To make out a case for infringement not the theme alone but the treatment should be similar. In the case of the plaintiff, we find neither the theme nor the treatment are similar.
33.This Court after going through the script of “SPM” – Ex.P.1 and the feature film “Kathi” – Ex.D.3, find that neither the idea nor the expression is same. There is no even overlapping here and there in these two story scripts. The 24/33 http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.853 of 2017 plaintiff alleges that he gave the script to one Ragunath an associate of second defendant during the month of December 2010. From the character Vennila, the second defendant has developed the story for his film 'Ezham Arivu' and later, he has produced the film “Kathi”. He has neither arrayed the said Ragunath as defendant nor summoned him to give evidence. The third defendant on the complaint of the plaintiff has compared the story of 'Neelam', the source for the movie 'Kathi' with that of the script of “SPM” and had found there is no similarity between them. On perusing both the scripts, this Court also forced to come to the same conclusion.
34.The learned counsel for the plaintiff would submit that the second defendant has neither filed his written statement nor appeared before the Court to give evidence. Therefore, it is to be presumed that the case set up by him is not correct. Before the third defendant, during the enquiry, the second defendant has stated that he has developed the film “Kathi” based on the story script 'Neelam' written by him. However, the second defendant has not produced the script of “Neelam”. The best evidence in this case would be the script of “Neelam” which is allegedly in possession of the second defendant. Withholding the best evidence by a person who is in possession is the ground to draw adverse inference. Therefore, the suit has to be allowed. What has been now exhibited is the movie 'Kathi'. The story 'Neelam' alleged to have written by the second defendant is not the subject 25/33 http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.853 of 2017 matter of infringement. Hence, the above contention of the plaintiff is without force.
35.The Censor Board certified CD of the movie “Kathi” marked as Ex.D.3 is questioned by the plaintiff that it is not admissible in evidence since, not accompanied with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, Certificate. Relying upon Anvar P.V v. P.K.Basheer and others (2014 (10 SCC 473) case, the learned counsel would submit that the said CD (Ex.D.3) should not be looked into since, it is not accompanied by Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, Certificate.
36.The prime contention of the plaintiff is that the defendants had not only adopted the idea of copyright work of the plaintiff but also had adopted the manner, arrangement, situation to situation, scene to scene with minor changes additions or embellishments here and there. Relying upon R.G.Anand v. M/s.Delux Films and others (1978 (4)SCC 118) case would submit that there is a clear infringement of copyright in the case of second defendant movie “Kathi”.
37.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.G.Anand case (cited supra) has extracted the proposition regarding copyright infringement in the following terms:- 26/33
http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.853 of 2017 “Thus, on a careful consideration and elucidation of the various authorities and the case law on the subject discussed above, the following propositions emerge:
1. There can be no copyright in an idea, subject matter, themes, plots or historical or legendary facts and violation of the copyright in such cases is confined to the form, manner and arrangement and expression of the idea by the author of the copyright work.
2. Where the same idea is being developed in a different manner, it is manifest that the source being common, similarities are bound to occur. In such a case the courts should determine whether or not the similarities are on fundamental or substantial aspects of the mode of expression adopted in the copyrighted work. If the defendants work is nothing but a literal imitation of the copyrighted work with some variations here and there it would amount to violation of the copyright. In other words, in order to be actionable the copy must be a substantial and material one which at once leads to the conclusion that the defendant is guilty of an act of piracy.
3. One of the surest and the safest test to determine whether or not there has been a violation of copyright is to seeing the reader, spectator or the viewer after having read or seen both the works is clearly of the opinion and gets an unmistakable impression that the subsequent work appears to be a copy of the original.
4. Where the theme is the same but is presented and treated differently so that the subsequent work becomes a 27/33 http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.853 of 2017 completely new work, no question of violation of copyright arises.
5. Where however apart from the similarities appearing in the two works there are also material and broad dissimilarities which negative the intention to copy the original and the coincidences appearing in the two works are clearly incidental no infringement of the copyright comes into existence.
6. As a violation of copyright amounts to an act of piracy it must be proved by clear and cogent evidence after applying the various tests laid down by the case law discussed above.
7. Where however the question is of the violation of the copyright of stage play by a film producer or a Director the task of the plaintiff becomes more difficult to prove piracy.
It is manifest that unlike a stage play a film has a much broader prospective, a wider field and a bigger background where the defendants can by introducing a variety of incidents give a colour and complexion different from the manner in which the copyrighted work has expressed the idea. Even so, if the viewer after seeing the film gets a totality of impression that the film is by and large a copy of the original play, violation of the copyright may be said to be proved.”
38.The plaintiff who alleges infringement has to prove infringement in the manner known to law. The plaintiff has proved the fact that he has registered the story “SPM” with the third defendant association on 10.04.2013. The script of 28/33 http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.853 of 2017 “SPM” is marked as Ex.P.1. The script of movie “Kathi” is marked as Ex.D.2 and the CD of the film “Kathi” is marked as Ex.D.3. In the plaint, it is alleged that the script “SPM” and script of “Kathi” are replica of each other. Whereas, on reading both the scripts, this Court finds that there is not even iota of similarity. Whatever similarity drawn and mentioned in the comparative chart - Ex.P.5 are very remote and even if it be in isolation, they are not similar taken as a whole. To say atleast, the scenes and sequence of the script “SPM” is unconnected with the scenes and sequence of the film “Kathi”. Hence, this Court finds that the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that his form, manner arrangement and expression of idea has been infringed by the defendants. The script of the plaintiff is based on emotion between two couple centering around an old lady. Whereas, the script of the second defendant “Kathi” is on land grabbing by a schemy industrialists. There is no similarity on the fundamentals or substantial aspect neither mode of expression is similar.
39.As the Hon'ble Supreme Court has said in R.G.Anand case, the surest and safest test to determine whether or not, there has been a violation of copyright is to see, if the Reader, Spectator or the Writer after having read or seen both the works is clearly of the opinion and gets non mistakenly that the subsequent work appears to be copy of the original. On reading of Ex.P.3 script (“SPM”) and Ex.D.2 script ('Kathi'), this Court do not get such impression. Rather, this Court finds that the scripts are two different and distinct play and plot. While 29/33 http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.853 of 2017 the plaintiff has not even able to establish that the story of “Kathi” is replica of his script “SPM”, his allegation that the remake right acquired by the defendants 4 and 5 and the film “Kaidhi No.150” produced by the defendants 4 and 5 is also infringement of script of “SPM” is totally baseless. More so, when the plaintiff has not produced any document to show in connection with “Kaidhi No.150”. As a result, this Court holds that the plaintiff has no legal right and the plaintiff has failed to establish any infringement of his copyright by the defendants. Hence, Issue No.3 is negatived.
40.Since, the plaintiff has failed to place evidence to prove the Telugu movie produced by defendants 4 and 5 “Kaidhi No.150”, is remake of “Kathi” Tamil feature film which is based on the story “SPM”, the suit is liable to be dismissed for want of cause of action. Issue No.1 is answered accordingly.
41.Undoubtedly, the plaintiff is the copy right owner over the literary work “SPM” since, he has registered the same with the third defendant, on 10.04.2013. But that does not give him any right to sue the defendants alleging that the movie “Kathi” is based on his script since, there is no similarity either in idea or subject matter, the play or the expression or the ideas. Accordingly, Issue No. 2 is answered.
42.The plaintiff has alleged in the plaint that the movie “Kathi” is replica of the story. But he is able to indicate only about 25 incidents as similar. But even 30/33 http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.853 of 2017 those 25 incidents are not really similar or same. While so, when the story line, concept, screenplay and characters in the film “Kathi” is unconnected to the story script of “SPM”, the question of infringement does not arise. Issue No.4 is negatived.
43.Since, the plaintiff has failed to prove his case of infringement, no case for rendition of accounts from the defendants, is made out. As the consequence, the plaintiff is not entitled for compensation and damages. Issue Nos.5 and 6 are answered in negative.
44.In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.
13.02.2020 jbm Index: Yes Speaking order/non speaking order List of witnesses examined on the side of the plaintiff :-
Mr.K.Rangadoss – P.W.1 List of witness examined on the side of the defendants :-
Mr.K.Sundarrajan, Executive Producer of the first defendant company - D.W.1 31/33 http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.853 of 2017 List of exhibits marked on the side of the plaintiff :-
Ex.P.1 is the registered script of “SPM” dated 10.04.2013;
Ex.P.2 is the registration card for the script “SPM” issued by third defendant dated 10.04.2013.
Ex.P.3 is the photocopy of the letter of the plaintiff to the third defendant dated 17.11.2014;
Ex.P.4 is the said letter of the third defendant dated 21.11.2014; Ex.P.5 is the original hand written comparative script comparing “SPM” as well as that of the film “Kathi” and Ex.P.6 is the Script of film “Kathi”.
List of exhibits marked on the side of the defendants:-
Ex.D.1 is the authorization letter given by the first defendant to D.W.1 – Sundararajan.
Ex.D.2 is the script of feature film “Kathi” and Ex.D.3 is the Censor Board authorised DVD for the Tamil feature film “Kathi”.32/33
http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.853 of 2017 G.JAYACHANDRAN.J., jbm Pre – Delivery Judgment made in C.S.No.853 of 2017 13.02.2020 33/33 http://www.judis.nic.in