TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1687X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be in isolation, they are not similar taken as a whole - 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 defendant Kathi is on land grabbing by a schemy industrialists. There is no similarity on the fundamentals or substantial aspect neither mode of expression is similar. As the Hon'ble Supreme Court has said in R.G. ANAND VERSUS M/S. DELUX FILMS AND OTHERS [ 1978 (8) TMI 231 - SUPREME COURT] , the surest and safest test to determine whether or not, there has been a violation of copyright is to see, if the Reader, Spectator or the Writer after having read or seen both the works is clearly of the opinion and gets non mistakenly that the subsequent work appears to be copy of the original. On reading of Ex.P.3 script ( SPM ) and Ex.D.2 script ('Kathi'), this Court do not get such impression. Rather, this Court finds that the scripts are two different and distinct play and plot. While the plaintiff has not even able to establish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ff 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 scripts before concluding that there is no similarity. Hence, the plaintiff has prayed to declare the third de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 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 first defendant would further state that as the plaintiff has failed to establish his copy right in respe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 illegal uGodman of it. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief against the defendants 4 and 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 merits of the rival claim, it is helpful to extract the story line of the defendant's script SPM and the story line of the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng 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' village. Like Taj mahal built in memory of the loved one, Gopal decided to dig a pond. So with the help of 10 village Panchayat leaders and workers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tory 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 decides to take drastic measures to sensationalise the issue. He, Ankitha, Ravi, and the inmates of the old-age home block water supply to Chennai by sit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ected by land mafia Shirag and kept in his godown To dig pond, century patti collect workers from 10 villages. Kathiresan to prevent water supply collect 60 persons. Sethuraman say that Gopalanatha should come back as Farmer. Villagers want Jeevanatham to come back. Gopalanatha loves Agriculture, so Parimala loves gopal Kathiresan loves village elders, so heroin loves kathiresan. People are happy after goplanatha dug pond in the madhanam 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... am District. (xiv)Murder of Mr.Manimaran by Yugi Chandran is to settle personal score. Whereas, the murder of Shirag by Kathiresan in 'Kathi' movie is for the villagers in general. (xv)The presence of agriculture tools in the houses of Madhanam Village is compared with the collection of agriculture tools by the villan in his godown. The plaintiff tries to compare the presence of agriculture tools in each house kept for agriculture with that of collecting the agriculture tool by one person in his godown as an exhibition material. There is no similarity or identity 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a person who is in possession is the ground to draw adverse inference. Therefore, the suit has to be allowed. What has been now exhibited is the movie 'Kathi'. The story 'Neelam' alleged to have written by the second defendant is not the subject matter of infringement. Hence, the above contention of the plaintiff is without force. 35.The Censor Board certified CD of the movie Kathi marked as Ex.D.3 is questioned by the plaintiff that it is not admissible in evidence since, not accompanied with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, Certificate. Relying upon Anvar 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the copyright of stage play by a film producer or a Director the task of the plaintiff becomes more difficult to prove piracy. It is manifest that unlike a stage play a film has a much broader prospective, a wider field and a bigger background where the defendants can by introducing a variety of incidents give a colour and complexion different from the manner in which the copyrighted work has expressed the idea. Even so, if the viewer after seeing the film gets a totality of impression that the film is by and large a copy of the original play, violation 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
