2023 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 77183
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HON`BLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
BALAGANGADHAR @ K.K.SHANMUGA – Appellant
Versus
K.SHANKAR (FILM DIRECTOR) – Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON : 12.07.2023 PRONOUNCED ON: 19.07.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA C.S.No.50 of 2011
1.Balagangadhar @ K.K.Shanmugam [Deceased]
2.Pusphalatha 3.Prabhakaran
4.Sanjutha [Plaintiffs 2 to 4 are brought on record as legal heirs of deceased sole plaintiff as per the Order dated 07.12.2021 in A.No.4458 of 2021]
...Plaintiffs Vs
1.K.Shankar (Film Director)
2. The Managing Director, Sun Tv Network Limited Murasoli Maran Towers, No.73 MRC Nagar, Main Road MRC Nagar Chennai-28.
[Amended as per order dated 09.12.2022 in A.No.5260/2022]
...Defendants PRAYER: Plaint is filed under order IV Rule 1 High Court Original Side Rules R/W. Order 7 Rule 1 CPC praying as follows:-
(a) To declare the story line, screen play and the events taken part in the film Enthiran produced by the defendants herein are all based on the story written by the plaintiff in the caption of "Robot Uncle" and belongs to the plaintiff herein.
(b) To direct the defendants to render true account about the production, business made in respect of film "ENTHIRAN"
(c) To direct the defendants to pay the damages at Rs.2,25,00,000/-
(Two Crores twenty five lakhs only) with the future interest at the rate of
18% per anuum from the date of the plaint.
(d) to pay the cost of the suit.
(e) to grant the permanent injunction restraining the defendants from making further business with regard to the story, screen play and events belongs to the plaintiff and (f) to pass such further or other orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
For Plaintiff : Mr.V.Manohar For Defendants : Mr.D.Saikumaran [D.1]
M/s.A.L.Somayaji, Senior Counsel for M/s. Sneha [R.2]
JUDGMENT
The above suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking the following reliefs:-
(a) To declare the story line, screen play and the events taken part in the film Enthiran produced by the defendants herein are all based on the story written by the plaintiff in the caption of "Robot Uncle" and belongs to the plaintiff herein.
(b) To direct the defendants to render true account about the production, business made in respect of film "ENTHIRAN"
(c) To direct the defendants to pay the damages at Rs.2,25,00,000/-
(Two Crores twenty five lakhs only) with the future interest at the rate of
18% per anuum from the date of the plaint.
(d) to pay the cost of the suit.
(e) to grant the permanent injunction restraining the defendants from making further business with regard to the story, screen play and events belongs to the plaintiff and (f) to pass such further or other orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
The suit was filed by the sole plaintiff who after adducing evidence and pending the suit had passed away and his legal heirs have been brought on record and they are contesting the case.
Plaintiff’s Case:-
2. It is the case of the sole plaintiff that he was associated with the film industry for over 14 years and has participated in many film productions, story writing, screen play etc. While so, in the year 1989, he had scripted a story of a Robot existing side by side with normal humans. The story was a new concept. It was written and penned by him. Thereafter, he had read out the story for his friends and relatives who had appreciated the same. In the year 1991, Producers had come forward to co-operate with the plaintiff to produce a film from out of this story, however, owing to paucity of funds the plaintiff was not able to proceed with the same.
3. It is also his case that he had submitted the storyline and caption for registration with the South Indian Film Chambers of Commerce which had registered it. The registration was also being renewed. The plaintiff would further submit that the story "Robot Uncle" had been extensively advertised between the years 1991 and 1992. It is his case that people who have sat for the discussion with him in the year 1990 would vouch for the same.
st
4. The plaintiff would subm