TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 1687
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....character of "Vennila P.hd" in his 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 script....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s 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 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 f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... fresh suit. Therefore, the present suit is hit by Order II Rule 2 of C.P.C. 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 illeg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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 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 merit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... seeing this letter, despite consolation of her grandmother Century paati, Parimala go to the land of Gopal and commits 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' vil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....while, 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sp;Century party and 100 days employment scheme workers. Villan : Land mafia Mr.Manimaran Supporting Character: Elders from old age house Villan: Land mafia Shirag Solution given by the author: India is an Agricultural Country, river, land and pond should be preserved. Solution given by the author: Land and pond should be retrieved and restored. End of the story: Land retrieved. New pond dug. End of the story: Land retrieved. Water drawn from borewell. Sethuraman arrives Chennai from kashmir changed train and reached Chidambaram. Kathiresan from Kolkata reached Chennai by train. Sethuraman get down at Chidambaram without going to his village madhanam, to meet his would be wife. Kathiresan instead of going to Bangkok, cancel his trip to meet the Heroin. Entry of Gopalanatha shown as if, he is meditating by closing his eye. Entry of Jeevanadam shown with closed eyes with bullet injuries. Mr.Manimaran grab the land of Gopalanatha. To retrieve the said land, Parimala commit suicide. 6 Farmers commit suicide to retrieve the land from MNC. 5 land documents were taken to Vaitheeswaran Temple to be placed a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dhanam village Water flows from borewell. End: People from 10 villagers along with the Panchayat leaders wish the Hero. End: People wish the Hero with song. 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 :- (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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tity 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 - 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 sto....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nvar 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:- "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 for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 "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 defendan....