1. The present suit concerns the claim of the plaintiff in respect of certain musical works forming part of cinematographic films produced by Ralhan Productions of which the late father of the plaintiff was the owner and subsequently the plaintiff took charge of the same. The plaintiff claims that defendant Nos.1 and 2, who are the contesting defendants, need to be restrained from exploiting such works. It is her case that on a proper reading of the agreements, whereby certain rights were assigned to the said contesting defendants, after specific time period, they were no longer authorized to continue to exploit the works. In that context, ancillary reliefs are also sought by the plaintiff against the contesting defendant Nos.1 and 2. Defendant Nos.3, 4 and 5 are not contesting defendants and hence this suit has been resisted only by defendant Nos.1 and 2.

2. The chronology of events leading to filing of the present suit is required to be referred to, before taking into consideration the rival submissions in the context of the issues framed by this Court in the present suit.

3. O. P. Ralhan, late father of the plaintiff, who was the owner of Ralhan Productions, undertook production of cinematographic films, which also contained musical works and songs. Between 1963 and 1983, he produced 7 films, being the producer and owner of such creative works associated with the films. The plaintiff was born on 19.08.1964 and as per the Will left by the said O. P. Ralhan, which was probated in the year 2013, the plaintiff became the owner of productions undertaken by her father.

4. The father of the plaintiff executed agreements on 19.12.1962, 19.01.1965, 24.04.1967, 07.01.1970, 19.12.1972, 15.01.1977 and 27.04.1980 concerning the said films, thereby assigning to the predecessor of the defendant No.2 rights in the works of songs and recordings forming part of the seven films.

5. In the year 1999, the said O. P. Ralhan i.e. the father of the plaintiff died leaving behind his Will, bequeathing rights in properties including the said works in favour of the plaintiff. The Will was probated in the year 2013.

6. In the years 2004 and 2005, the plaintiff addressed certain communications to the defendant No.2 asking for royalty statements and payments of royalty under the aforesaid assignment agreements executed in favour of the predecessor of the defendant No.2. It is to be noted that there is no dispute about the fact that the rights assigned to the predecessor of defendant No.2 were in turn assigned to the defendant No.2. On 21.07.2009, the plaintiff addressed a letter to the defendant 2 No.2, acknowledging the payment of Rs.50,000/- towards part payment of royalty and further requested for a statement of accounts from the accounting year 2002-03 onwards.

7. On 09.01.2006, the defendant No.2 addressed a letter to the plaintiff referring to the aforementioned agreements covering the seven films and proposed certain terms for sharing of revenue from non - physical alternative mediums of communication of the works and sound recordings that formed part of the said seven agreements. The contesting parties have made detailed submissions on their respective interpretations of the said letter dated 09.01.2006. It would be necessary to interpret the said document in order to reach conclusions with regard to the claims made by the plaintiff and the resistance raised to the same on behalf of the contesting defendants. On 18.01.2006, the plaintiff responded to the said letter by simply stating that it was forwarded to legal advisors and that an appropriate response would be given after receiving legal advice. It is relevant to note here that while stating so, the plaintiff further stated that until execution of amendments to the agreements, the existing agreements shall be subsisting and binding.

8. After a gap of more than four years, on 12.05.2010, the plaintiff sent a letter through her advocate to the defendant No.2 informing that none of the said ag