Judgment :- The Judgment was delivered by : All the three suits have been filed with regard to copyrights relating to Tamil motion picture 'GURU SISHYAN'. C.S. No. 1493 of 1994 is filed by Mrs. Meena Panchu Arunachalam, Proprietrix of M/s. P.A. Art Productions alleging that she is in the business of production of motion pictures, that during the course of her business, she produced a Tamil movie film titled 'Guru Sishyan' starring Rajnikanth, Prabhu, etc., that the picture was directed by S. P. Muthuraman, that the plaintiff as producer and first owner of copyrights, has assigned distribution rights to various third party distributors retaining herself the Satellite rights among other rights, that satellite rights have not been assigned to any person by the plaintiff, that the plaintiff is vested with Satellite right of the picture 'Guru Sishyan', that the plaintiff entered into an agreement with the second defendant on 22-7-1991, that as per the agreement, the second defendant was given specific copyrights and lease rights of the said picture for exhibition and exploitation in 35 mm. dimension, that right to broadcast the picture through Satellite television was not given to the second defendant, that while so the first defendant claiming to be an assignee under the second defendant has announced telecasting of the picture 'Guru Sishyan' through its Satellite Television Network on 25-10-1994, that the first defendant has no right to telecast the suit picture through Satellite television, that the proposed telecast is illegal and an act of infringement of the plaintiff's limited copyright, that the second defendant has no manner of right over the limited copyright, namely Satellite telecast rights of the picture, that the agreement entered between the plaintiff and the second defendant does not even contain any specific word 'Satellite', that therefore assignment made in favour of the first defendant by the second defendant is illegal, that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the limited copyright, namely the Satellite right of the picture 'Guru Sishyan', that in view of the attitude of the defendants, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the copyright, namely Satellite rights for the entire world of the picture 'Guru Sishyan' and a consequential injunction restraining the defendants from telecasting the said picture through satellite T.V.First defendant is M/s. Sun T.V., an Unit of Sumangali Publications Private Limited, Chennai and it filed a written statement contesting the claim of the plaintiff by contending that the suit is not maintainable, that the plaintiff is the producer of the picture 'Guru Sishyan' in Tamil, that by the agreement dated 22-7-1991, the plaintiff has assigned the copyright and lease rights in favour of the second defendant, that the agreement specifically provides that copyright has been assigned in favour of the second defendant for a period of 99 years from 22-7-1991, that the plaintiff has assigned the said rights in favour of the second defendant for a perpetual period of 99 years, that the second defendant has been given the rights to deal with the negatives of the picture in any manner whatsoever as absolute owner, that the assignment deed dated 22-7-1991 in favour of the second defendant is in respect of distribution, exploitation and lease rights of the said picture all over the world, that the plaintiff has irrevocably authorised M/s. Gemini Colour Laboratory to transfer the negatives in the name of the second defendant as absolute owner of the negatives and requested the lab to act according to the instructions of the second defendant, that the second defendant has thus become the absolute owner of the copyright of the said picture, that the plaintiff has not retained for herself the Satellite rights as claimed by her, that the second defendant has been given right to deal with the negatives of the picture, that no right has been reserved in favour of the Producer under the said agreement, that whatever rights available with the plaintiff at the time of assignment have been transferred to the second defendant, that the second defendant has assigned the world negative rights in respect of the said picture obtained under the agreement dated 22-7-1991 from the plaintiff to M/s. O.K. Films, that M/s. O.K. Films have assigned the copyright with regard to Satellite Television Broadcast of the suit picture in favour of M/s. Nemichand Jakab by a deed of assignment dated 3-1-1993, that the said Nemichand Jakab in turn has assigned the Satellite rights in favour of this defendant on 4-1-1993, that thus this defendant has become entitled to telecast the said picture through Satellite Television, that since the plaintiff has assigned the entire copyright of the picture in favour of the second defendant, she cannot lay any claim in respect of satellite television rights, that the claim of the plaintiff cannot be sustained, that this defendant has got the right to telecast the picture through Satellite Television, that there is nothing illegal in this defendant telecasting the picture through Satellite Television in its network, that therefore the suit is liable to be dismissed and the plaintiff is not entitled to declaration or injunction prayed for in the suit. M/s. O.K. Films, who have assigned the Satellite Television rights in favour of this defendant have given a letter to M/s. Gemini Colour Laboratory to deliver the negatives of the picture for making U-matic Tapes to M/s. Nemichand Jakab and that the plaintiff has lost her rights in respect of negatives of the film.Second defendant in the suit is Ramesh and said Ramesh along with M/s. O.K. Films filed C.S. No. 1357 of 1995 raising the following contentions :- Defendant is the Producer of the Tamil Talkie movie titled 'Guru Sishyan' in 35 mm. Colour featuring Rajnikanth, Prabhu, Gowthami and others, directed by S. P. Muthuraman, that the defendant offered to assign the absolute and exclusive copyright over the negative rights of the suit picture for a perpetual period of 99 years from 14-4-1993 to the second plaintiff, free from all encumbrances, that the second plaintiff accepted the same, that under a Deed of Assignment dated 22-7-1991 the defendant has assigned the entire negative rights of the suit picture in favour of the second plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 2 lakhs, that as per Clause 2 of the said agreement, the perpetual negative rights for a period of 99 years has been granted to the second plaintiff which includes the distribution, exhibition and exploitation and lease rights of the picture all over the world, that the defendant has also issued an irrevocable letter to Gemini Colour Laboratory, Madras requesting it to transfer and deliver the picture and sound negative in favour of the second plaintiff from 14-4-1993, that on 23-7-1993 the second plaintiff has assigned the said rights in favour of the first plaintiff as per the agreement entered between them, that the first plaintiff has thus become entitled to exclusive world negative rights including the copyrights and lease rights of the said picture, that the first plaintiff has become entitled to World Television Display Rights, Audio Rights and all other rights in all dimensions for a period of 99 years, that the first plaintiff has paid valuable consideration of Rs. 2, 25, 000/- to the second plaintiff, that negative rights have been transferred to the first plaintiff, that Gemini Colour Laboratory has been addressed by the second plaintiff, that the Producer/defendant filed C.S. No. 1493 of 1994 before this Court with a prayer for declaration of her telecasting rights, that the said suit is also pending, that the first plaintiff is negotiating for the assignment of dubbing rights of the said picture, that the defendant is interfering with the prospective assignees falsely claiming that she retains dubbing rights, that the defendant has no dubbing rights, that she has transferred all the rights in favour of the second plaintiff, that the first plaintiff has now become the sole owner of copyrights of Tamil film 'Guru Sishyan', that therefore the plaintiffs are constrained to file the suit praying for a declaration that the first plaintiff is the sole and exclusive holder of World negative rights including of copyright and they are also entitled to World Satellite Television Display Rights, that an injunction may also be granted against the defendant from interfering with the right of exploitation of the picture in any manner by the defendants.The defendant Mrs. Meena Panchu Arunachalam, Proprietrix of M/s. P.A. Art Productions, filed a written statement raising the same contentions which she has raised in C.S. No. 1493 of 1994 filed by her. Meena Panchu Arunachalam, Proprietrix of M/s. P.A. Art Productions, filed a written statement raising the same contentions which she has raised in C.S. No. 1493 of 1994 filed by her. M/s. Sun T.V., an Unit of M/s. Sumangali Publications Private Limited has filed C.S. No. 103 of 1995 impleading one Meena Panchu Arunachalam and M/s. Raj Television Network Limited as defendants 1 & 2 making the following allegations :- The plaintiff is carrying on business in exhibiting motion pictures through their Unit SUN TV through Satellite Television Broadcast, that the plaintiff has obtained negatives of the picture from the Laboratory with the consent of the Producer for transferring it to U-matic tapes, that broadcasting through Satellite Television is done from Mania in Philipines, that broadcast is made over 52 countries, that in the course of business, the plaintiff has acquired Satellite Television broadcast rights of the picture 'Guru Sishyan', that the first defendant is the Producer of the said movie, that the first defendant as Producer originally no doubt was entitled to all copyrights, that she has assigned the entire world negative rights in favour of one S. P. Ramesh as per the agreement dated 22-7-1991, that the agreement specifically provides that said Ramesh, the assignee, is entitled to entire copyright of the picture free from all encumbrances, that negatives themselves were transferred in the name of Ramesh for a period of 99 years, that Ramesh became entitled to deal with the negative rights in any manner whatsoever as absolute owner, that Ramesh has assigned all the rights to M/s. O.K. Films, who in turn has assigned the said rights in favour of Nemichand Jakab, that Nemichand Jakab by an agreement dated 4-1-1993 assigned the Satellite right in favour of the plaintiff, that as per the Assignment Deed the plaintiff has thus become entitled to Satellite T.V. Broadcast right of the picture 'Guru Sishyan' that no other person is entitled to the said right of the picture, that in fact the plaintiff has already made a broadcast of the picture in their Satellite Network on 30-5-1993, that this is known to the defendants, that M/s. O.K. Films by a letter dated 5-1-1993 asked M/s. Gemini Colour Laboratory to deliver negatives for making U-matic tapes, that the first defendant cannot seek to assign any right for Satellite Transmission of the picture to anybody else, that the first defendant having assigned Satellite rights in favour of (Ramesh) cannot raise any objection for Satellite broadcast of the film by this plaintiff, that the second defendant has now advertised the picture for exhibition in Satellite Television on 15-1-1995, that the second defendant claims to have obtained Satellite right from the first defendant, but she herself is not entitled to any rights, that in view of the announcement made by the second defendant, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the Satellite rights of the picture 'Guru Sishyan', that it is also entitled for permanent injunction restraining the second defendant from telecasting the picture 'Guru sishyan' through Satellite Communication Network and hence the suit.First defendant Mrs. Meena Panchu Arunachalam filed a written statement raising the same contentions which she has raised in her suit and stating that she was not aware of the plaintiff broadcasting the picture through its Satellite Television on 30-5-1993, that the plaintiff has no right to do so, that this defendant has assigned World Satellite rights for perpetual period in favour of the second defendant Raj Television Network, that the second defendant has got right to broadcast the picture through their Satellite Network, that what has been assigned to M/s. O.K. Films is only the right to exploit the picture in 35 mm. and that therefore the suit may be dismissed. Second defendant M/s. Raj Television Network, Madras filed a written statement contesting the claim of the plaintiff by contending that the picture 'Guru Sishyan' in Tamil was produced by the first defendant, that the first defendant has also assigned 35 mm. rights in favour of one Ramesh, that the plaintiff has not obtained the Satellite rights in respect of the said picture from the assignees of Ramesh, that therefore the agreement entered between the plaintiff and the persons claiming under Ramesh cannot confer owner of the copyright, namely Satellite Television Broadcast right that the agreement under which the plaintiff claims is only in favour of Sumangali Publications Private Limited, that there is no assignment in favour of the plaintiff-M/s. Sun T.V., that the suit filed by the plaintiff is, therefore, not maintainable, that this defendant has become entitled to Satellite Television right of the picture 'Guru Sishyan' under a letter of arrangement entered between himself and the producer Mrs. Meena Panchu Arunachalam dated 20-11-1994, that therefore, this defendant is entitled to broadcast the picture through his Satellite Television Network, that therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.The following issues were framed for trial in C.S. No. 1493 of 1994 :- (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of his copyright - Satellite Television right of the suit picture ? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction ? (3) To what relief the plaintiff is entitled, if any ? The following issues were framed for trial in C.S. No. 103 of 1995 :- (1) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable ? (2) Whether the assignment of Satellite Television right by Ramesh is valid and enforceable ? (3) To what relief the plaintiff is entitled, if any ? The following issues were framed for trial in C.S. No. 103 of 1995 :- (1) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable ? (2) Whether the assignment of Satellite Television right by Ramesh is valid and enforceable ? (3) Whether the second defendant has obtained Satellite Television rights in the suit picture ? (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration and injunction prayed for ? (5) To any other relief, the parties entitled ? Following issues were framed for trial in C.S. No. 1357 of 1995 :- (1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration that they are the exclusive holders of world negative rights including World Satellite Television rights for the picture 'Guru Sishyan' ? (2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to injunction ? The three suits are in respect of World Satellite Television rights claimed by the three plaintiffs in respect of Tamil movie 'GURU SISHYAN.' Admittedly the film was produced by Meena Panchu Arunachalam under the banner M/s. P.A. Art Productions and she has filed C.S. No. 1493 of 1994 impleading M/s. Sun T.V. and one S. P. Ramesh as defendants 1 and 2. S. P. Ramesh along with one M/s. O.K. Films has filed C.S. No. 1357 of 1995 claiming to have obtained the entire world negative rights including Satellite Television rights in respect of the same picture. M/s. O.K. Films, however, would claim to have assigned Satellite Television rights in favour of one Nemichand Jakab from whom M/s. Sun T.V. is said to have obtained the rights. M/s. Sun T.V., an unit of Sumangali Publications Private Limited in turn has filed C.S. No. 103 of 1995 claiming to have obtained World Satellite Television rights in respect of the same movie. Since the issues involved all are common, since parties are all same, with the consent of parties to the suits, all the three suits were ordered to be tried jointly and common evidence was recorded in C.S. No. 1493 of 1994 which was agreed to be treated as evidence for the other two suits also. Both sides have not adduced any oral evidence and the defendants filed Exs. B-1, B-2 and B-3 documents only. Both sides have not adduced any oral evidence and the defendants filed Exs. B-1, B-2 and B-3 documents only. Both sides have made submissions based on these documents.While discussing the issues, parties are referred to as they are arrayed in C.S. No. 1493 of 1994 and M/s. Raj Television Network, the second defendant in the suit filed by Sun T.V. C.S. No. 103 of 1995 will be referred to in his name for convenient reference hereinafter. Issue No. 1 in C.S. Nos. 1493 of 1994 and 1357 of 1995 and Issue No. 183 in C.S. No. 103 of 1995. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the plaintiff-Mrs. Meena Panchu Arunachalam is the Producer of the Tamil film 'GURU SISHYAN' starring Rajnikanth, Prabhu and others and directed by S. P Muthuraman and the film was released prior to 1991 under the banner M/s. P.A. Art Productions. So, Meena Panchu Arunachalam as the Producer of Cinematograph film is the author and owner of copyrights in respect of the picture 'Guru Sishyan.' It is also not in dispute that the release of the picture was made by the plaintiff through various distributors throughout Tamil Nadu and other centres and those distributors have got only right to exploit the picture in 35 mm. by screening them in various cinema theatres in Tamil Nadu and other places. Meena Panchu Arunachalam has chosen to deal with copyright of the said picture as a whole for the first time under Ex. B-2, a deed of assignment of copyright dated 22-7-1991. Ex. B-2 assignment has been made in favour of the second defendant-Ramesh by Meena Panchu Arunachalam, the producer of the picture. In the preamble portion of the assignment deed, it is stated that assignors are the producers of the Tamil Talkie picture 'Guru Sishyan, ' that the picture has already been released throughout the world and the rights in respect of the distribution, exhibition and exploitation granted to various distributors as mentioned in Annexure-I would expire on 13-4-1993 and the above said rights will come into force to the assignee after the expiry of the lease period of these persons. Even in the preamble, the plaintiff has made it very clear that initial assignment of copyright of the picture 'Guru Sishyan' has been transferred at the time of release of the picture to various distributors and they have obtained rights in respect of distribution, exploitation and exhibition of the Tamil picture 'Guru Sishyan' and those rights will come to the assignee Ramesh after expiry of the lease period of those distributors. It is also found in the preamble of the assignment deed that the producer has offered to assign the sole, absolute and exclusive copyright over the negative rights of the said picture for a perpetual period of 99 years from 14-4-1993 in favour of the assignee Ramesh. Consideration of the assignment is Rs. 2 lakhs.Clause 1 of Ex. B-2 assignment deed reads as follows :- "...... the assignor agrees to transfer and assign the copyrights and lease rights of the said picture titled 'GURU SISHYAN' in 35 mm. colour for a period Ninety nine years from 14th April, 1993. The perpetual negative rights for a period of ninetynine years herein hereby granted includes the distribution, exhibition and exploitation and lease rights of the said picture all over the world from 14th April, 1993. The assignor herein hereby agrees to irrevocably authorise Gemini Colour Laboratory, Madras where the negatives (both picture and sound) are kept to transfer the negatives in the name of the assignee and to keep the same in their name as absolute owners of the negatives for perpetual period of 99 years and act only according to their instructions and to deal with the negatives of the said picture with the assignee in any manner whatsoever as absolute owners in future for a period of 99 years." The assignor goes on to assure that no encumbrance has been created or subsisting in respect of the rights conferred on the assignee. The assignor has also agreed to execute all further documents and letters addressed to public authorities and bodies etc. the Film Chamber of Commerce or any other Government institutions for the purpose of effective enjoyment and perfecting the ownership rights of the said picture for a period of 99 years from 14-4-1993. The assignee shall be entitled to apply for and obtain necessary Censor certificate, permits, etc. the Film Chamber of Commerce or any other Government institutions for the purpose of effective enjoyment and perfecting the ownership rights of the said picture for a period of 99 years from 14-4-1993. The assignee shall be entitled to apply for and obtain necessary Censor certificate, permits, etc. The assignor has also agreed to give necessary letters to South Indian Film Chamber of Commerce and the Central Board of Film Censors, Madras for further certification of the picture. She has also given an irrevocable letter to Gemini Colour Laboratory, Madras intimating the transfer of rights for a period of 99 years in favour of the assignee Ramesh. It is further stated that the assignors are entitled to take any number of prints of the said picture for meeting out the existing commitments of various distributors till the expiry of the present terms of lease which ends on 13-4-1993. The assignee could have no manner of objection to this.So, a reading of Ex. B-2 agreement under which the other defendants claim rights would show that S. P. Ramesh has been assigned copyrights in respect of negatives of the film 'Guru Sishyan' for exhibition and exploitation of the said picture all over the world for a period of 99 years. It is also admitted by both the parties in the said deed that rights transferred to Ramesh are only the rights which have been earlier transferred in favour of various distributors at the time of release till 13-4-1991. It is not in dispute that those distributors only enjoyed the right of exhibition and exploitation of the said picture and while those distributors were not given negative rights, Ramesh has been granted world negative rights and, therefore, his rights extend for the whole world. It is not disputed by the Producer that under Ex. B-2 assignment she has transferred the world negative rights in favour of Ramesh, who is entitled to exploit and exhibit the picture in 35 mm. throughout the world and he can also exhibit the picture through television and video. The only right the plaintiff claims to have reserved for herself is the World Satellite Television rights. At the time when Ex. B-2 agreement was entered into between the parties, broadcasting of cinema through satellite television media was not in vogue. Only terrestrial television established by Doordarshan was in vogue. The only right the plaintiff claims to have reserved for herself is the World Satellite Television rights. At the time when Ex. B-2 agreement was entered into between the parties, broadcasting of cinema through satellite television media was not in vogue. Only terrestrial television established by Doordarshan was in vogue. The plaintiff does not question the right of Ramesh or the persons claiming under him to broadcasting the picture through Doordarshan, namely Terrestrial television. Objection is taken only in respect of Satellite Television rights which definitely has not been conveyed under Ex. B-2. Under Ex. B-2 Ramesh got world negative right and he has also obtained laboratory letter from the Producer for the purpose of getting negatives of the film and also for taking as many prints as he likes.The rights obtained by the second defendant-Ramesh has been transferred in turn to M/s. O.K. Films under Ex. B-3 dated 23-7-1991. Under this agreement also M/s. O.K. Films have got all the rights assigned in favour of Ramesh and the world negative right is given to M/s. O.K. Films and World negative right stated to include copyrights and lease rights of the said picture 'Guru Sishyan' in 35 mm. colour and all other dimensions including world video rights, world television display rights, audio rights and all other rights in all other dimensions for a period of 99 years as mentioned in the agreement of Messrs P.A. Art Production with effect from the date of assignment. While world negative rights has been granted in favour of Ramesh under Ex. B-2, in Ex. B-3 world television rights and world video rights are included. The plaintiff does not seriously contest the claim of the assignees to world video and T.V. rights. While Exs. B-2 and B-3 are silent with regard to Satellite Television rights in respect of the picture 'Guru Sishyan, ' for the first time under Ex. B-1, M/s. Nemichand and Jakab, who has obtained the rights from M/s. O.K. Films in turn has assigned in favour of Sun T.V. the first defendant the Satellite Television Broadcast rights. While the other two agreements are silent and do not include Satellite Television Broadcast rights, when the first defendant has chosen to take assignment given by the successors to Ramesh, he has claimed to have obtained World Satellite Television rights. While the other two agreements are silent and do not include Satellite Television Broadcast rights, when the first defendant has chosen to take assignment given by the successors to Ramesh, he has claimed to have obtained World Satellite Television rights. Sun T.V. Network is engaged in the business of Satellite Television and that is the reason why they have chosen to obtain this right and the successors of Ramesh, the original assignee, for the first time sought to convey Satellite Television rights also in favour of the first defendant. It is on the basis of this agreement, the first defendant claims to have obtained Satellite Television rights. The plaintiff on the other would claim that she has never transferred or assigned Satellite Television rights in favour of Ramesh and, therefore, the persons claiming under Ramesh cannot rightly claim to have obtained Satellite Television rights and the latter rights are still preserved by the Producer, namely the plaintiff.Dispute with regard to copyright in respect of video and television have already surfaced and decided by our High Court on prior occasions. In A. V. Meiyappan v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, 1969 AIR(Mad) 284) a Division Bench of this Court has held as follows (at pages 292-293 of AIR) :- "We feel it necessary to examine the rights which the producer of a film gets under the law. It is well recognised that such rights in relation to cinematograph productions are governed by the Statute at the present time, in whatever manner they may have been characterised in the past. Section 2(d)(v) of the Copyright Act 14 of 1957, defines "author" to mean in relation to a cinematograph film the owner of the film at the time of its completion. A cinematograph film includes the sound track. The further parts of this section define what an "exclusive licences" and an "infringing copy" or a "performance" mean in relation to cinematograph films. Under S. 13 of the Act copyright is declared to exist throughout India in words, such as cinematograph films and records. Section 14 lays down what is meant by copyright. It means in the case of literary, dramatical or musical work the exclusive right by virtue of the provisions of the Act to make any cinematograph film or a record in respect of the work. Section 14 lays down what is meant by copyright. It means in the case of literary, dramatical or musical work the exclusive right by virtue of the provisions of the Act to make any cinematograph film or a record in respect of the work. In the case of the copyright in a cinematograph film, it means the exclusive right to cause a film, in so far as it consists of visual images, to be seen in public and in so far as it consists of sound to be heard in public. There are other rights comprehended in the copyright in the case of a cinematograph film, which find place in S. 14(1)(c) and (d), to which we shall refer later in due course. Section 17 states that the author of a work shall be the first owner of the copyright, "work" in this connection meaning the cinematograph film. There is no doubt that in the circumstances of this case, the lessor is the author of the work, viz., the cinematograph film in question. Section 18 provides for assignment of copyright. The owner of the copyright in an existing work may assign to any person the copyright either wholly or partially and either generally or subject to limitations and either for the whole term of the copyright or any part thereof. Upon such assignment being made, under S. 18(2) the assignee continues to be the owner in respect of the right not assigned. Section 19 requires assignment of copyright in any work to be in writing signed by the assignor. Section 26 provides the lifetime of the copyright to be fifty years. Apart from assignment of copyright which is provided by S. 18, S. 30 enables the owners of the copyright to grant any interest in the right of licence in the work." In P. Thulasidas v. K. Vasanthakumari, 1991 (1) Mad LJ 220 Lakshmanan, J. has held as follows :- "It is seen that the plaintiff was given absolute negative rights and it is open to him to exercise his right of distribution, exploitation and exhibition of the film in question. In my opinion a reading of the exhibits filed on behalf of the plaintiff and particularly, the sale certificate given by the Official Assignee of the High Court, Madras, shows prima facie that all the rights relating to the negatives of the films were conveyed to him and there was no reservation with regard to the films of any other or vide rights. Hence, in my opinion, the plaintiff is entitled to make copies from the films of 35 mm. gauge, 16 mm. gauge and also telecast the films in Televisions." Learned Judge relied upon a ruling reported in 1984 AIR(Delhi) 379 (Balwinder Singh v. Delhi Administration) wherein it was held that video and television both are cinematograph and that both are jointly and severally apparatus for the representation of moving pictures or series of pictures. In Dineshkumar v. State of Maharashtra, 1984 AIR(Bom) 34 learned single Judge of the Bombay High Court has held as follows (at page 38) :- "When a VCR is used for playing pre-recorded cassettes of movies on the IV screen, it is certainly used as an apparatus for the representation of moving pictures or series of pictures and comes within the definition of "cinematograpy" as defined under the Cinematograph Act." Since the world negative copyright has been assigned in favour of the plaintiff in that case, Lakshmanan, J. ultimately held that he is having absolute copyright of the picture which includes video and television rights. But, the same Judge while considering the dispute between persons claiming a Satellite Television rights in a movie has held as follows in Raj Video Vision v. M/s. Sun T.V. (1994 (2) Mad LW 158) :- "Further under S. 18(2) of the Copyright Act, where the assignee of the copyright becomes entitled to any right comprised in the copyright, the assignee as respects the rights so assigned and the assignor as respects the rights not assigned shall be treated for the purpose of this Act as the owner of the copyright and the provisions of this Act shall have effect accordingly. Section 19(2) provides for that assignment of copyright in any work shall among other things indicate clearly the rights proposed to be assigned and the size of the work. Thus, it will be clear that the plaintiff/applicant cannot claim anything more than the rights said to have been assigned to them under the agreement relied upon by them. Section 19(2) provides for that assignment of copyright in any work shall among other things indicate clearly the rights proposed to be assigned and the size of the work. Thus, it will be clear that the plaintiff/applicant cannot claim anything more than the rights said to have been assigned to them under the agreement relied upon by them. As stated supra, there is no mention of the word Satellite in any of the agreements put forward by the plaintiffs. As already adverted to, the copy right for broadcasting or telecasting the Film through Satellite, cable, wire, wireless or through any other system or any other form, means and modes other than through Doordarshan terrestrial primary channel without restriction of geographical area is a separate right. Satellite right is a new, separate and distinct specie of right hitherto not visualised and this cannot be said to be included under the agreements relied upon by the plaintiffs in any event. Such a right should be specifically contemplated under the agreement. In fact, cassettes are used for home TV whereas 'U' matic tapes are used for Satellite Transmission. .......... I am of the view that the satellite television broadcasting right is an independent right for which the plaintiff cannot claim any copyright. ...... This apart, we can also see the difference between the satellite and terrestrial T.V. Satellite T.V. signals cannot be received by normal TV sets unless proper electronic equipment and dish antenna is used to receive the signal sent which feeds to the TV sets via cable. A regular TV set without cable connection cannot get the programme.Terrestrial T.V. is totally different from satellite TV because anybody with a TV set can receive and watch terrestrial TV programmes without the need of cable and specialised equipment and huge dish antenna. ..... A regular TV set without cable connection cannot get the programme.Terrestrial T.V. is totally different from satellite TV because anybody with a TV set can receive and watch terrestrial TV programmes without the need of cable and specialised equipment and huge dish antenna. ..... Thus, looked at from any angle, satellite TV broadcasting rights are independent rights and the same have to be assigned specifically and so far as such rights have not been assigned in favour of the applicant/plaintiff specifically, the plaintiffs cannot claim any copyright in the same or seek any order of injunction on the ground of alleged infringement by the defendant." In Raj Video Vision v. K. Mohan Krishnan, Thangaraj, J. has held as follows (at pages 297-298 of AIR) :- "However, the conclusion which can be arrived at is that when the producers themselves were not aware of their future rights accrued due to scientific advancements, it cannot be said they had already transferred the rights not in existence by way of assignments. The assignments cannot be made of rights not in existence and, therefore, it can be safely decided that the video rights of the film were not given to the assignee and the assignee in turn as assignors could not have assigned the video rights to the second defendant herein." So far as the case on hand is concerned, the agreements have been entered into in 1991 when broadcast by Satellite Television has not come into vogue in India and, therefore, the producer, namely Meena Panchu Arunachalam could not have assigned these rights also when she conveyed the negative rights in favour of Ramesh. Neither Ramesh nor M/s. O.K. Films have dealt with Satellite Television rights in respect of the picture while executing the deed of assignment in favour of others. For the first time when Sun TV has obtained the assignment, the word "Satellite Television rights" are included. But, the original transferee, namely Ramesh himself has not obtained the said rights and, therefore, the persons claiming under him cannot lawfully claim to have obtained Satellite Television rights. Satellite Television rights since not specifically assigned by the Producer, only remained with her, she has chosen to transfer the Satellite Television rights in favour of M/s. Raj Television Network and, therefore, Raj Television Network are the owners of the copyright in respect of Satellite Television rights. Satellite Television rights since not specifically assigned by the Producer, only remained with her, she has chosen to transfer the Satellite Television rights in favour of M/s. Raj Television Network and, therefore, Raj Television Network are the owners of the copyright in respect of Satellite Television rights. Others cannot claim to have lawfully obtained the copyright for Satellite Television. Therefore, it has to be concluded that the plaintiff in C.S. No. 1493 of 1994, namely Meena Panchu Arunachalam has not conveyed Satellite Television right is in favour of Ramesh and Ramesh also could not have conveyed the said rights to O.K. Films, M/s. Sun T.V. or others. Therefore, when the producer has chosen to assign the satellite television rights in favour of M/s. Raj Television Network, they have become entitled to the same and, therefore, the plaintiff in C.S. No. 1493 of 1994 is entitled for the declaration prayed for. The declaration sought for by the plaintiffs, namely M/s. Sun T.V. in C.S. No. 103 of 1995 and M/s. O.K. Films in C.S. No. 1357 of 1995 have to be negatived.Therefore, these issues are answered accordingly. ISSUE No. 1 in C.S. No. 103 of 1995 :- A contention has been raised by the second defendant in C.S. No. 103 of 1995 with regard to maintainability of the suit by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is M/s. Sun T.V., which is an unit of M/s. Sumangali Publications Private Limited, Madras and the assignment is claimed in favour of M/s. Sumangali Publications Private Limited and since M/s. Sun T.V. is only an unit of M/s. Sumangali Publications Private Limited, there is no impropriety in M/s. Sun T.V. maintaining the suit as against third parties. Therefore, I hold on this issue that the suit is maintainable. In view of my findings on the main issues, all the other issues have to be answered in favour of the plaintiff in C.S. No. 1493 of 1994. In the result, the plaintiff in C.S. No. 1493 of 1994 is given a decree as prayed for and the other two suits are dismissed. Parties are, however, directed to each bear their own costs.