J U D G M E N T

The plaintiff has come up with the present suit seeking for a declaration to declare that he is the absolute owner of the copyright that was conferred on him through the agreement dated 08.04.1995 and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, officers etc. from telecasting, interfering or infringing the copyright of the plaintiff.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that he is carrying on business in exhibition, exploitation and distribution of motion pictures. The plaintiff states that, by an agreement dated 08.04.1995, the 1st defendant assigned the sole and exclusive copyright for broadcasting the schedule mentioned movies, through any Satellite System, Cable Television rights without any restrictions and geographical area, in his favour for a valuable consideration and for the period of 99 years. The further case of the plaintiff is that the 1st defendant is also carrying on a similar business and during the course of that business, she acquired the Satellite Television Broadcasting rights of the following pictures, mentioned in the schedule to the plaint.

3. The further case of the plaintiff is that the 2nd defendant through a letter dated 11. 08. 2009, confirmed the assignment made by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff. It is stated that the plaintiff has been enjoying the rights acquired by him through the agreement dated 08.04.1995 without any interference, until the 3rd defendant sent him a letter dated 16.09.2016. The letter stated that the schedule mentioned motion pictures are offered for sale and that the movies are free from any claim. The plaintiff further claims that the 3rd defendant has questioned his copyright in the above mentioned pictures. Through a letter dated 23.09.2016, the plaintiff sent a reply to the 3rd defendant stating that he is the absolute owner of the satellite rights of the schedule mentioned motion pictures. The plaintiff submits that he is having an apprehension that the defendants may collude together and create another agreement to defeat his rights. Aggrieved by the above sequence of events, the present suit was filed.

4. The defendants were served with notice. They did not choose to contest the suit and they were set ex-parte.

5. The only issue to be decided in the present suit is as to whether the plaintiff has the exclusive right to exploit the copyright given in his favour, by virtue of the agreement dated 08. 04. 1995, executed in favour of the plaintiff by the 1st defendant.

6. This Court, by an order dated 16. 11. 2021, came to a conclusion that oral evidence is not required and the suit can be decided on the basis of the documents filed on behalf of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the documents filed on behalf of the plaintiff were marked as Exhibits P1 to P4.

7. Heard Mr.C.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff.

8. The plaintiff is in the business of exploitation, exhibition and distribution of motion pictures. The 1st defendant acquired the Satellite Television Broadcasting rights of the pictures described in the schedule to the plaint. The 1st defendant assigned this sole and exclusive copyright in favour of the plaintiff through an agreement dated 08 .04. 1995, which is marked as Exhibit P1. The agreement was entered into for a valid consideration paid by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant. By virtue of this agreement, the plaintiff acquired the sole and exclusive copyrights for broadcasting the motion pictures described in the schedule to the plaint without any restriction in geographical area and for the period of 99 years.

9. It is also clear that the plaintiff addressed a letter to the

2nd defendant informing the assignment made by the 1st defendant, in his favour. The same is evident from the letter dated 11. 08. 2019. The 2nd defendant has confirmed the assignment through this letter an