In C.S.No.30 of 2021 (Comm.Suits)-MADR HC- Assignment Deed concerning rights in cinematograph film doesn’t require compulsory attestation, however, attestor’s evidence assumes significance when there is a cloud over due execution of document: Madras HC
Justice S. Sounthar [06-06-2023]

feature-top

Read Order:C. Prakash Vs. M/s S. N. Media And Ors 


 

Tulip Kanth

Chandigarh, June 7, 2023:While observing that the plaintiff failed to prove due execution of the assignment deeds by leading acceptable evidence, the Madras High Court has dismissed a suit seeking a declaration that the petitioner was the sole and absolute owner of all the intellectual property rights in respect of dubbed cinematograph film 'Chingari' and 'Shrikanta' in Tamil and Malayalam.

“Ofcourse, assignment deed concerning rights in a cinematograph film is not a document which requires compulsory attestation. Notwithstanding the same, when there is a cloud over the due execution of the document, attestors evidence assumes significance”, Justice S. Sounthar said.

The plaintiff had filed a suit seeking declaration that he is the sole and absolute owner of all the intellectual property rights in respect of dubbed cinematograph film 'Chingari' and 'Shrikanta'. He also sought for a direction to the defendants to remove the infringing content of the copyrights protected film in Tamil and Malayalam while also seeking damages of Rs 1,20,000 from the defendants.

According to the plaintiff, the second defendant is the producer of the Kannada cinematograph film 'Chingari' and he acquired dubbing rights in Tamil and Malayalam languages along with internet and non-theatrical rights of the said film and another film not connected with the suit 'Shishira' vide an Assignment Deed. The plaintiff also acquired  dubbing rights in Tamil and Malayalam languages along with internet and non-theatrical rights of the Kannada film 'Shrikanta' vide an Assignment Deed.

The plaintiff claimed that the consideration of Rs 30,000  and Rs 25,000 had been paid to the defendants respectively through one Rajendra Kumar, who brokered the deal. According to the plaintiff, he paid Rs 55,000 vide NEFT transaction to said Rajendra Kumar and he inturn paid Rs.50,000 to the defendants after deducting Rs.5,000 which was payable to him by them. 

 

The second defendant is the producer of the Kannada film 'Chingari' and 'Shishira'. The third defendant is the producer of the Kannada film 'Shrikanta'. Both of them issued receipts acknowledging receipt of consideration in respect of the above said Assignment Deeds from Rajendra Kumar. It was alleged  by the plaintiff that later on, it came to his knowledge that the third defendant had assigned exclusive dubbing rights of the films 'Chingari' and 'Shrikanta' in other South Indian Languages in favour of the first defendant. 

 

It was further averred that a legal notice was issued by the plaintiff  to the defendants. The defendants had issued a reply  stating that they had not received any consideration from the plaintiff in respect of the Assignment Deed in his favour and consequently, they assigned rights in respect of the above said films in favour of the first defendant. The plaintiff, claiming that consideration already paid to defendants through Rajendra Kumar, had come up with the suit before the High Court.

 

The Bench observed that  assignment deed concerning rights in a cinematograph film is not a document which requires compulsory attestation. Notwithstanding the same, when there is a cloud over the due execution of the document, attestors evidence assumes significance. In the case on hand, the contesting first defendant pleaded collusion between the plaintiff and the defendants and in view of the stand taken by the first defendant, a cloud was created over due execution of assignment deed. Therefore, it was incumbent on the plaintiff to cure the cloud by proving due execution of the assignment deed. 

 

It was opined that the witness column in the assignment deeds were blank and therefore, there was no attestor to examine. It was noticed that there was a material contradiction with regard to the presence of plaintiff at the time of execution of assignment deeds. The plaintiff sought declaration of its dubbing rights over the films in question under Assignment Deeds, however, he failed to produce the original assignment deeds but produced only the photocopies. 

 

The witness column in the assignment deed was blank and in the clause relating to the payment of consideration, payment reference number and payee name were all left blank. The Court was unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that plaintiff proved due execution of the deeds. It was also observed that when the very execution of assignment deeds were not proved, the plaintiff couldn't take advantage of the precedent that mere non-payment of consideration would not vitiate the assignment because even a promise to pay consideration can be treated as a sufficient consideration. 

 

The Bench came to the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove due execution of deeds by leading acceptable evidence. “The conduct of defendants 2 and 3 in their failure to appear before this Court and participate in the proceedings creates a suspicion that there is a collusion between the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3”, the Bench said while dismissing the suit.


 

Add a Comment