LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Saturday, September 3, 2011

copy rights- M/s. Vijaya Production Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the Producer") produced 15 Telugu films. By an agreement dated 28.9.1987, the Producer granted the sole and exclusive video rights of the films to M/s. Jyothi Video for a period of seven years. During the currency of that agreement, the Producer gifted the films to M/s. Nagireddy Charities (respondent No.3) represented by its Managing Trustee, Shri B. Nagireddy. Respondent No.3 entered into an agreement of lease with respondent No.2- M/s. Vijaya Pictures whereby the rights of theatrical and non-theatrical distribution, exhibition and exploitation including video and TV rights were given to respondent No.2 for the areas of Andhra and Nizam for a period of 20 years commencing from 1.1.1975 for a consideration of Rs.20 lakhs. By another agreement dated 25.6.1990 (Exhibit A-4) the term of agreement dated 10.1.1975 was extended by 70 years with effect from 1.1.1995. The relevant portions of that agreement are extracted below: "Whereas the Lessors are the absolute owners in possession of the negatives, holding the entire rights for the Indian Union of the Telugu Talkie pictures produced by M/s Vijaya productions Private Ltd., as specified hereunder, the rights of which have been assigned absolutely by way of gift by the said Vijaya Productions Private Ltd., in favour of the Lessors. Whereas the Lessors have already granted to the Lessees, the exclusive lease rights of exploitation of their several Black and White and Colour pictures for the territory of Andhra and Nizam by way of agreement of lease dated 10.1.1975 for a


                                                                NON-REPORTABLE




                     IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA


                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION




                       CIVIL APPEAL NO.6438 OF 2005










M/s. Divya Exports                                                   ... Appellant




                                          Versus




M/s. Shalimar Video Company


and others                                                           ... Respondents








                                   J U D G M E N T








G.S. Singhvi,  J.








1.     This   appeal   is   directed   against   the   judgment   of   the   learned   Single 




Judge   of   the   Andhra   Pradesh   High   Court   whereby   he   allowed   the   appeal 




filed by respondent No.1 and decreed the suit filed by the said respondent 




for grant of a declaration that it is having exclusive worldwide video rights 




of VCD/DVD and other formats of video rights in respect of 15 Telugu films 




for   which   it   had   entered   into   an   agreement   dated   27.8.2001   with   M. 




Srinivasa   Rao   and   also   for   restraining   the   appellant   and   respondent   Nos.2 




and 3 from producing or selling VCDs/DVDs or any other video format of 




those films in any form of exploitation. 



                                                                                             2










2.     M/s. Vijaya Production Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the 




Producer")   produced   15   Telugu   films.     By   an  agreement  dated   28.9.1987, 




the Producer granted the sole and exclusive video rights of the films to M/s. 




Jyothi   Video   for   a   period   of   seven   years.     During   the   currency   of   that 




agreement,   the   Producer   gifted   the   films   to   M/s.   Nagireddy   Charities 




(respondent No.3) represented by its Managing Trustee, Shri B. Nagireddy. 




Respondent No.3 entered into an agreement of lease with respondent No.2-




M/s.   Vijaya   Pictures   whereby   the   rights   of   theatrical   and   non-theatrical 




distribution, exhibition and exploitation including video and TV rights were 




given to respondent No.2 for the areas of Andhra and Nizam for a period of 




20 years commencing from 1.1.1975 for a consideration of Rs.20 lakhs.  By 




another   agreement   dated   25.6.1990   (Exhibit   A-4)   the   term   of   agreement 




dated 10.1.1975 was extended by 70 years with effect from 1.1.1995.   The 




relevant portions of that agreement are extracted below:




       "Whereas the Lessors are the absolute owners in possession of 


       the negatives, holding the entire rights for the Indian Union of 


       the Telugu Talkie pictures produced by M/s Vijaya productions 


       Private   Ltd.,   as   specified   hereunder,   the   rights   of   which   have 


       been   assigned   absolutely   by   way   of   gift   by   the   said   Vijaya 


       Productions Private Ltd., in favour of the Lessors.




       Whereas   the   Lessors   have   already   granted   to  the   Lessees,   the 


       exclusive lease rights of exploitation of their several Black and 


       White   and   Colour   pictures   for   the   territory   of   Andhra   and 


       Nizam   by   way   of   agreement   of   lease   dated   10.1.1975   for   a 



                                                                                          3






period   of   20   years   from   1st  of   January,   1975.     Whereas   the 


Lesees   have   approached   the   Lessors   to   grant   unto   them   the 


exclusive   lease   rights   of   Theatrical   and   Non-theatrical 


distribution, exhibition and exploitations of the several pictures 


by way of lease, in respect of the areas of Andhra and Nizam as 


known in the Film Trade, for a further period  of 70 (seventy) 


years from the date of expiry of the present lease agreement i.e. 


from   1st  January   1995   and   to   transfer   complete   pictures 


negatives in favour of the Lesees herein.  




NOW THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH AS FOLLOWS:-




1.   The   Lessors   hereby   grant   us   the   Lessees   as   the   rights   of 


Theatrical   and   Non-Theatrical   distribution,   exhibition   and 


exploitation by way of lease of the following Black and White 


Telugu Pictures produced by M/s Vijaya Productions Pvt. Ltd. 


Madras 600 020 including the video and T.V. Rights thereof




1. Shavukaru


2. Pathala Bhairavi


3. Pellichehi Choodu


4. Chandraharam


5. Missamma


6. Maya Bazar


7. Appuchesi Pappukudu


8. Jagadekaveerunikatha


9. Gundamma Katha


10. C.I.D.


12. Umachandi Gowrishankula Katha


13. Rechukka Pagatichukka


for   the   Areas   of   Andhra   and   Nizam,   and   to   appropriate   to 


themselves the proceeds earned by them on the said pictures by 


such   exploitation   for   a   period   of   70   (seventy)   years   from   1st 


January 1995.




4.   The   Lessees   shall   have   the  power   to  assign   this   agreement 


either   in   part   and/or   whole   to   third   parties   at   their   discretion, 


without in any manner affecting the rights of the Lessors under 


this agreement.



                                                                                              4






       5. It is agreed that the Lessors shall not lease out, sell or exhibit 


       the pictures in the territories for which the rights of exploitation 


       are   herein   be   granted,   till   the   expiry   of   the   agreement.     The 


       Lessees also shall not exhibit the pictures in any station outside 


       the territory leased herein.








       7.   It   is   understood   between   the   parties   herein   that   this 


       agreement   is   without   prejudice   to   the   16mm   rights;   T.V.   and 


       Video   rights   committed   by   the   producers   Vijaya   Productions 


       (P) Ltd for the various periods with the parties concerned and 


       the Lessees herein are entitled for the said rights after the expiry 


       of the periods committed thereunder."








3.     A   third   agreement   dated   11.12.1995   (Exhibit   A-5)   was   entered   into 




between   respondent   Nos.3   and   2   whereby   and   whereunder   copyright   for 




broadcasting of films through satellites, cassettes, disc, cable, wire, wireless 




or any other system including its transmission through cable system without 




restriction of geographical areas was assigned to respondent No.2 for a sum 




of   Rs.8   lakhs.     The   relevant   portions   of   the   third   agreement   are   also 




extracted below:




       "Now, This Agreement Witneseth:




       1.   The   Assignors   irrevocably   assign   to   the   Assignees   the 


       copyright   for   broadcasting   the   said   films   through   satellite, 


       cassette,   disc,   cable,   wire,   wireless   or   any   other   system 


       including   its   transmission   through   cable   system   without 


       restriction   of   geographical   areas   and   for   this   purpose   the 


       assigners are authorized to make such copies of recordings on 


       film, taps, disc or such other media as may be required.



                                                                                               5






       2.   The   Assignors   have   already   delivered   to   the   Assigners   the 


       concerned version of the picture and sound negatives of the said 


       films   as   per   the   Agreement   dated   25-6-1990   between   the 


       Assignors and Assignees. 




       3. The Assignees shall have the full right to broadcast the said 


       Films   after   subtitling,   editing,   deleting   any   portion,   altering 


       colour or inserting advertisement, or broadcasting the excerpts, 


       or   programme   including   the   excerpts,   or   part   of   whole   of   the 


       sound track only, at their sole and absolute discretion.




       4.  The   Assignees   shall  be  entitled  to  assign  their  rights   under 


       this   Agreement   in   part   or   in   full   to   any   other   party   and   to 


       broadcast   through   any   authority   or   agency,   at   their   sole   and 


       absolute   discretion   including   Doordharshan's   Terrestrial 


       Primary Channels."








4.     After five years, respondent No.2 entered into an agreement of lease 




dated 30.7.2001 with M. Srinivasa Rao and granted him rights of theatrical 




and   non-theatrical   (excluding   satellite   rights)   exhibition   and   35   mm 




exploitation,   video,   VCD,   DVD,   Audio   and   16   mm   by   way   of   lease   in 




respect  of 14  films  for  the areas   of  Andhra  and  Nizam for  a  period   of  60 




years for a consideration of Rs.10 lakhs.  Paragraphs 5 to 9 of that agreement 




read as under:




       "5. The Lessees shall have the power to assign this agreement 


       either   in   part   or   whole   to   third   parties   at   their   discretion, 


       without any manner affecting the rights of the lessors under this 


       agreement.




       6. The lessors hereby grant to the lessees the rights of theatrical 


       and   non-theatrical   (excluding   satellite   rights)   exhibition   and 



                                                                                               6






       35mm   exploitation,   video,   VCD,   DVD,   Audio   and   16mm   by 


       way of lease of the following.




       7. It is agreed the lessors shall not lease out, sell or exhibit the 


       pictures   in   the   territories   for   which   the   rights   of   exploitations 


       herein granted till the expiry of this agreement.




       8. In case the original procedures M/s Vijaya Productions Pvt. 


       Ltd. or lessors herein require any prints of the pictures lease out 


       herein for any overseas exploitation the same share be delivered 


       by the lessees herein at cost.




       9. It is understood between the parties herein that 16mm rights, 


       video   rights   committed   by   the   producers   Vijaya   Productions 


       Pvt. Ltd. with the parties concerned was expired.   The lessees 


       herein are entitled for the said rights."








5.     M. Srinivasa Rao executed an agreement dated 17.8.2001 in favour of 




respondent   No.1   and   granted   CDs,   VCDs,   DVDs,   copyrights   for 




transferring, processing, recording, duplication, copying, taping on to video 




grams, discs, CDs, VCDs, DVDs and the digital formats for commercial and 




private exhibition of the 15 films for the entire world.










6.     Three   days   prior   to   the   execution   of   the   aforesaid   agreement, 




respondent   No.3   entered   into   an   agreement   dated   14.8.2001   with   the 




appellant   and   assigned   it   exclusive   DVD   rights,   VCD   rights   and   internet 




rights (worldwide web TV rights) by way of lease in respect of the 15 films 



                                                                                              7






for the entire world including Indian Union Territory for a period of 60 years 




in lieu of a consolidated royalty amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. 










7.      Within   8   days   of   the   execution   of   agreement   dated   17.8.2001, 




respondent   No.1   got   published   a   notice   in   the   newspaper   dated   25.8.2001 




declaring  that it had purchased DVD and VCD rights for 15 Telugu films 




produced   by   M/s.   Vijaya   Production.     Thereupon,   respondent   No.3   issued 




telegram to respondent No.1 and called upon it to stop production of DVDs 




and   VCDs.     In   its   reply   dated   31.12.2001,   respondent   No.1   relied   upon 




agreement dated 17.8.2001 executed by M. Srinivasa Rao and claimed that it 




had purchased all the rights in respect of the 15 films.  By way of rejoinder, 




respondent No.3 informed respondent No.1 that it had not sold or assigned 




any   rights   to   respondent   No.2  or  M.   Srinivasa   Rao   to  produce   DVDs  and 




VCDs. 










8.      After   exchange   of   notices,   respondent   No.1   filed   suit   for   grant   of 




relief   to   which   reference   has   been   made   in   the   opening   paragraph   of   this 




judgment.  It also applied for and was granted ex parte injunction by the trial 




Court on 23.6.2003, which was vacated on 22.8.2003. The appeal preferred 




by respondent No.1 was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court.



                                                                                              8










9.      In the written statement  filed by the appellant  through its Managing 




Partner Bh. Sudhakar Reddy, which was adopted by respondent No.3, it was 




pleaded that the rights of VCDs/DVDs had not been assigned by respondent 




No.3 to respondent No.2 and, as such, M. Srinivasa Rao could not acquire 




any   such   rights   from   respondent   No.2   and   assign   the   same   to   respondent 




No.1.  In a separate written statement, respondent No.2 claimed that in terms 




of   agreement   dated   15.12.1995   executed   with   respondent   No.3,   it   had 




acquired   the   rights   for   future   technical   development   in   the   field   of 




cinematography.     Respondent   No.2   pleaded   that   after   accepting   a   sum   of 




Rs.8   lakhs,   respondent   No.3   had   assigned   irrevocable   copyright   for 




broadcasting   the   said   films   through   satellite,   cassette,   disc,   cable,   wire, 




wireless or any other system including its transmission through cable system 




without restriction of geographical areas and for this purpose, the assignees 




were   authorised   to   make   copies   of   recording   of   films,   disc,   tape   or   such 




other   media   as   may   be   required.     Respondent   No.2   admitted   that   it   had 




entered   into   an   agreement   dated   30.7.2001   with   M.   Srinivas   Rao   for 




assignment   of   the   rights   acquired   by   it   under   agreements   dated   25.6.1990 




and 15.12.1995.



                                                                                                     9






10.     On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following 




issues:




        "1)      Whether this court has territorial jurisdiction to maintain 


                 the suit?




        2)       Whether   the   suit   is   bad   for   non   joinder   of   necessary 


                 parties?




        3)       Whether   the   agreement   dt.   25.6.1990   will   include 


                 VCD/DVD rights and whether the plaintiff is entitled to 


                 claim the broadcasting rights thereunder coupled with the 


                 agreement   dt.   15.2.2002   and   thereby   the   plaintiff   is 


                 entitled for the manufacture and sale of the VCDs/DVDs 


                 of the suit films?




        4)       Whether   the   plaintiff   is   entitled   for   the   relief   of 


                 declaration and the injunction sought for?




        5)       To what relief?"










11.     After considering the pleadings of the parties and evidence produced 




by   them,   the   trial   Court   held   that   the   suit   was   bad   for   non   joinder   of   M. 




Srinivasa Rao, who is said to have assigned rights to respondent No.1.  This 




is evinced from the following observations made by the learned trial Court:  




        "The   plaintiff   is   claiming   his   right   through   M.   Srinivasa   Rao 


        from   whom   the   plaintiff   has   obtained   an   agreement   for 


        assignment of the rights over the suit schedule films.  When the 


        defendants   1   and   3   have   come   forward   with   a   specific 


        contention   that   the   M.   Srinivasa   Rao   have   no   right   at   all   to 


        assign   the   VCD   and   DVD   rights   the   plaintiff   ought   to   have 


        impleaded the said M. Srinivasa Rao as a party to the suit.  But 


        the plaintiff has not chosen to bring him on record and he has 



                                                                                            10






       deposed in his cross examination that he has no grievance at all 


       against M. Srinivas Rao and therefore he thought that it is not 


       necessary to bring him on record.   It is important to note that 


       the plaintiff is claiming right through M. Srinivas Rao.  He has 


       purchased   the   rights   from   the   2nd  defendant   and   because   the 


       dispute   is   that   he   has   conveyed   the   rights   which   was   not 


       covered by the agreement under which he got the assignment in 


       his   favour   from   the   2nd  defendant   the   plaintiff   ought   to   have 


       impleaded M. Srinivasa Rao as one of the parties and in spite of 


       the objection taken by the other side the plaintiff has not chosen 


       to   bring   the   Srinivasa   Rao   on   record   but   only   satisfied   by 


       saying   that   he   has   no   grievance   against   Srinivas   Rao.     This 


       issue   to   be   held   as   against   the   plaintiff   holding   that   the 


       necessary   party   Srinivas   Rao   is   not   brought   on   record   and 


       therefrom the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary party and 


       Issue No.2 is held accordingly."  










12.    The   trial   Court   then   referred   to   agreements   dated   25.6.1990   and 




15.12.1995   executed   between   respondent   Nos.2   and   3,   agreement   dated 




30.7.2001   entered   into   between   respondent   No.2   and   M.   Srinivasa   Rao   as 




also agreement dated 14.8.2001 executed by M. Srinivasa Rao in favour of 




respondent No.1, referred to the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957, two 




judgments   of   the   Madras   High   Court   and   concluded   that   the   plaintiff   has 




failed to make out a case for grant of declaration and injunction.










13.    In   the   appeal   filed   by   respondent   No.1,   the   learned   Single   Judge 




framed the following questions:



                                                                                                  11






        "1.     Whether the assignment of copyrights made by the third 


        defendant in favour of first defendant is true and valid?




        2.      Whether the assignment of copyrights made by the third 


        defendant   in   favour   of   second   defendant   confers   the   right   of 


        manufacturing and selling VCDs/DVDs and whether the rights 


        assigned and conferred under Exs.A.4 and A.5 are only meant 


        for   `broadcasting'   the   suit   films   and   if   so,   what   is   the   effect 


        thereof?




        3.      Whether   the   non-joinder   of   the   person   by   name 


        Srinivasarao,  who was allegedly  the assignee from the second 


        defendant and assignor in favour of the plaintiff, would vitiate 


        the suit?                                 or




        Whether the plaintiff can be non-suited for non-joinder of one 


        Srinivasarao   who   was   allegedly   the   assignee   from   the   second 


        defendant and assignor of the plaintiff?"










14.     Although, the trial Court had not framed any issue which could give 




rise   to   question   No.1   and   in   the   appeal   filed   by   the   respondent   no   such 




prayer was made, the learned Single Judge invoked Order XLI Rule 24 of 




the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and justified the framing of first 




question by recording the following observations:




        "The first point as formulated by this Court in this appeal was 


        not framed by the trial court as an issue in the suit.  But in my 


        considered view, the trial court ought to have framed this issue 


        also in the light of the specific averment made by the plaintiff 


        in the plaint that the acquisition of rights by the first defendant-


        M/s   Divya   Exports   from   the   3rd  defendant-M/s   Nagireddy 


        Charities,   represented   by   its   Trustee-Venugopal   Reddy   was 


        totally  false and  baseless  having regard to the fact  that Sri  B. 


        Nagireddy, the original Managing Trustee of the 3rd  defendant-



                                                                                              12






       M/s   Nagireddy   Charities,   had   already   given   away   the 


       copyrights during the year 1995 itself in favour of the second 


       defendant.   Hence, having regard to the said specific averment 


       made  by the plaintiff  in the plaint and also in the light of the 


       specific ground taken by the plaintiff in this appeal with regard 


       to the application of Section 73 of the Indian Trusts Act 1881 


       (for short "the Trusts Act"),  I deem it absolutely  necessary to 


       formulate   the   first   point   for   consideration,   exercising   the 


       jurisdiction of this Court under Order 41, Rule 24 C.P.C.   For 


       this reason, this Court formulated the first point as stated supra.




       From the submissions made at the Bar by the learned Counsel 


       appearing   for   the   parties,   it   could   be   seen   that   the   whole 


       controversy   revolves   around   Exs.A.4   and   A.5   and   Ex.A.3   on 


       one side and Ex.A.3 on one side and Ex.B.1 on the other." 








       The   learned   Single   Judge   then   referred   to   the   pleadings   and   oral   as 




well as documentary evidence produced by the parties, Sections 73 and 74 of 




the   Trusts   Act   and   held   that   Exhibit   B.1   executed   by   respondent   No.3   in 




favour  of the appellant  was not valid.   Paragraphs 52 to 55 and 58 of the 




impugned   judgment,   which   contain   the   reasons   recorded   by   the   learned 




Single Judge for arriving at the said conclusion, are extracted below:




       "52.    What is more interesting to note is that no trust deed or 


       any   other   document   was   pressed   into   service   by   the   first 


       defendant  while getting  himself examined as D.W.1 to clarify 


       or explain that Mr. Venugopalreddy had acquired the status of a 


       trustee   of   M/s   Nagireddy   Charities   in   order   to   effectively 


       represent the trust and to execute Ex.B.1 document in favour of 


       the first defendant.  Interestingly, D.W.1 was the Special Power 


       of Attorney Holder also, representing M/s Nagireddy Charities.




       53.     In   other   words,   totally   an   alien,   not   connected   with   the 


       affairs   of   M/s   Nagireddy   Charities,   but   a   beneficiary   under 



                                                                                    13






Ex.B.1,   was   examined   as   D.W.1,   representing   both   defendant 


No.1   and   defendant   No.3.     No   document   relating   to 


appointment of Venugopalreddy as a trustee of M/s Nagireddy 


Charities,   authorizing   Venugopalreddy   to   represent   trust   has 


been brought on record and no person directly connected with, 


and having knowledge of the affairs of M/s Nagireddy Charities 


had been examined on behalf of the defendants.




54.    It is to be remembered that the suit was instituted in the 


year 2003 and during the pendency of the suit Mr. B. Nagireddy 


was   very   much   alive,   of   course,   totally   in   a   state   of 


indisposition.     In   such   circumstances,   I   am   of   the   considered 


view that the burden heavily lies on either the first defendant or 


the third defendant to establish the change in trusteeship of M/s 


Nagireddy Charities, in which case alone Ex.B.1 document can 


be   called   as   a   validly   and   legally   executed   document   by 


Venugopalreddy in the capacity of the trustee of M/s Nagireddy 


Charities   in   favour   of   the   first   defendant.     Unfortunately,   no 


other witness, except D.W.1, was examined in this behalf.




55.    It   is   well-known   principle   that   a   person   who   has   no 


proper   authorization   to   represent   a   trust   cannot   enter   into 


agreements with third parties in order to bind the trust - even if 


such agreements are entered into, such agreements are not valid 


in the eye of law.  In the instant case, the first defendant and the 


third   defendant   -   M/s   Nagireddy   Charities,   represented   by   its 


Power   of   Attorney   Holder   have   utterly   failed   to   establish   the 


capacity   of   Venugopalreddy   as   trustee   to   execute   Ex.B.1 


agreement assigning the VCDs and DVDs copyrights in respect 


of the suit schedule films in favour of the first defendant during 


the   lifetime   of   Sri   Nagireddy,   the   Managing   Trustee   of   M/s 


Nagireddy   Charities.   This   is   a   strong   and   suspicious 


circumstance,   which   compels   this   Court,   to   hold   that   Ex.B.1 


was   not   executed   by   a   proper   and   authorized   person 


representing the third defendant-trust, conveying the copyrights 


of VCDs and DVDs in favour of the first defendant.   Further, 


when   Mr.   Venugopalreddy's   authority   as   trustee   to   execute 


Ex.B.1   is   in   serious   doubt,   first   defendant,   who   is   the 


beneficiary of the said document cannot be placed on a higher 


and comfortable position that Mr. Venugopalreddy.



                                                                                         14










58.     From the perusal of the impugned judgment it could be 


seen the court below while discussing issues 3 and 4, without 


going to the aspect of validity or otherwise of the assignment of 


copyright   in   favour   of   first   defendant   by   third   defendant, 


incidentally recorded a finding basing on the Xerox copy of a 


document Ex.A-12, that the plaintiff is estopped from raising a 


plea   that   B.   Venugopal   Reddy   has   no   authority   to   represent 


third defendant trust.  But a perusal of Ex.A-12 discloses that it 


is   only   a   reiteration   of   assignment   of   broadcast   rights   under 


Ex.A-5.   In this context it is to be noted that Ex.A-12 is only a 


Xerox   copy   and   the   original   is   not   filed.   No   reasons   were 


recorded by the trial court with regard to the admissibility of the 


said   document.   Even   assuming   that   the   said   document   was 


really   executed   by   B.   Venugopal   Reddy   in   favour   of   second 


defendant,   as   already   noticed,   it   is   only   a   reiteration   or 


confirmation of Ex.A-5. Further there  is no cross-examination 


by  the  defendants   1  and  3  on  this  aspect  and  there  is   also  no 


reference   to   this   document   in   the   written   statements   filed   by 


them. Therefore, so long as the execution of Ex.A-4 was agreed 


to   have   been   in   subsistence   by   virtue   of   its   execution   by   B. 


Nagi   Reddy,   Managing   Trustee   of   third   defendant   assigning 


rights for a period of seventy years, Ex.A-12 does not gain any 


significance. If Ex.A-12 is to be accepted, notwithstanding the 


admissibility   or   otherwise   of  it,   at   best   it   has   to   be   presumed 


that B. Venugopal Reddy had become the Managing Trustee of 


third   defendant   as   on   the   date   of   execution   of   Ex.A-12   dated 


15-2-2002.   But   in   the   present   case,   the   whole   dispute   is   with 


regard to the authority of B. Venugopal Reddy to execute Ex.B-


1   document   in   the   capacity   of   trustee   of   third   defendant   in 


favour of first defendant, which is a prior transaction. In other 


words   the   genesis   of   the   rights   of   assignment   of   broadcast   is 


Exs.A-4 and A-5, but not Ex.A-12. Furthermore, the reasons for 


bringing   into   existence   of   the   controversial   Ex.A-12   is   not 


explained   in   the   evidence   of   either   of   the   parties   and   as   its 


execution  is  subsequent  to the  execution  of  Ex.B-1,  on which 


defendants   1   and   3   are   mustering   their   claim   of   copyright   of 


VCDs and DVDs, the same is not relevant and inconsequential. 


Hence, the finding of the trial court that the plaintiff is estopped 



                                                                                                  15






        to   question   the   validity   or   otherwise   of   the   trusteeship   of   B. 


        Venugopal Reddy for third defendant is not justifiable."










15.     Although,   learned   senior   counsel   appearing   for   the   parties   made 




elaborate   arguments   on  the   merits   of  the   findings  recorded   by   the   learned 




Single   Judge   with   reference   to   questions   No.2   and   3   and   produced 




publications  titled  Copinger and Skone James  on Copyright  (15th  Edition), 




Goldstein   on   Copyright   (3rd  Edition)   Volume   1   and   the   judgments   of 




different High Courts, we do not consider it necessary to examine the same 




because   in   our   considered   view,   the   learned   Single   Judge   was   not   at   all 




justified in non-suiting the appellant by recording a finding that Exhibit B.1 




was invalid.










16.     Since   the   trial   Court   had   not   framed   specific   issue   touching   the 




validity   of   agreement   Exhibit   B.1,   the   parties   did   not   get   effective 




opportunity   to   lead   evidence   in   support   of   their   respective   cases.     In   the 




absence   of   any   issue,   the   trial   Court   did   not   even   advert   to   the   question 




whether or not agreement Exhibit B.1 was valid.  The evidence available on 




the   record   was   not   at   all   sufficient   for   deciding   that   question   and   yet   the 




learned Single Judge decided that question by drawing inferences from the 




statements made by the witnesses examined by the parties with reference to 



                                                                                               16






the issues framed by the trial Court and returned a negative finding on the 




validity of Exhibit B.1.










17.     In our view, in the peculiar facts of this case, the learned Single Judge 




was not at all justified  in invoking Order  XLI Rule  24 CPC.   If  at all the 




learned   Single   Judge   felt   that   the   trial   Court   should   have   framed   specific 




issue   on   the   validity   of   agreement   Exhibit   B.1,   then   he   should   have 




remanded the matter to the trial Court with a direction to frame such an issue 




and decide the suit afresh.   The omission on the part of the learned Single 




Judge to adopt that course has resulted in manifest injustice to the appellant. 










18.     In   the   result,   the   appeal   is   allowed.     The   impugned   judgment   is   set 




aside and the case is remitted to the trial Court with the direction that it shall, 




after considering the pleadings of the parties, frame an additional issue on 




the validity of agreement Exhibit B.1 executed between respondent No.1 and 




respondent   No.3,   give   opportunity   to   the   parties   to   produce   evidence   and 




decide the suit afresh without being influenced by any  of the observations 




made by the High Court and this Court.    



                                                                                           17






19.     Since the matter is sufficiently old, we direct the trial Court to dispose 




of the matter as early as possible but latest within nine months from the date 




of receipt/production of copy of this judgment.   The parties are directed to 




appear before the trial Court on 10.10.2011.










20.     The   Registry   is   directed   to   send   a   copy   of   this   judgment   to   IX 




Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court (Fast Track Court), Hyderabad by 




fax.










                                                       .....................................J.


                                                        [G.S. Singhvi]










                                                                 ..............................


                                                                                    ........J.


                                                       [Asok Kumar Ganguly]


New Delhi;


September 02, 2011.