Judgment :- 1. This suit has been filed by the plaintiff praying for a declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the limited copyright viz. 8mm, 16mm, 35 mm and TV rights for the entire world in the picture “Oru Iniya Udayam” Tamil Colour and Video and television rights for entire India in the Picture “Nooravathu Naal” Tamil colour and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from infringing the plaintiffs limited copyrights viz. 8mm, 16mm, 35 mm TV rights in Overseas Territories, Video and Satellite Television Right in the entire world in the pictures “Oru Iniya Udhayam” and “Nooravathu Naal” Tamil Colour by telecasting the same and for costs. 2. The plaintiff has averred in the plaintiff as follows: Plaintiff is carrying on business in exhibition, exploitation and distribution of motion picture commercial and non commercial, in all gauges, while the defendant is a Television communication centre, transmitting regional language programmes mainly in Tamil. Plaintiff acquired the rights of exhibition, exploitation and distribution of the picture “Oru Iniya Udhayam” Tamil colour in 8mm, 16mm and 35 mm gauges and Television media for the entire overseas territories and video rights for the entire world under agreement dated 6.9.1986. Right to exploit the video rights and television rights in the picture “Noorvathu Naal” Tamil Colour was also acquired by the plaintiff under the agreement dt. 19.8.92. Plaintiff has acquired the limited copyrights as aforesaid and has been exploiting the same without any interference. On 20.3.94, the defendant announced in their programmes that they are going to telecast the aforesaid picture through the satellite communication network, which will be an infringement of the plaintiffs copyright. Hence the present suit. 3. The defendant filed a written statement, alleging that the suit is not maintainable, as there is a misjoinder of causes of action. Since the suit is based on two different causes of action, the suit is liable to be dismissed. The plaintiff has not specifically prayed for declaration relating to satellite right. There is no pleading in the plaint that the Video rights, T.V. rights include Satellite rights, and that the plaintiff is entitled to telecast the picture through Satellite. The producer of the picture Oru Iniya Udayam viz. Pondu Cine Arts assigned the entire copyright and world negative rights in favour of M/s. Poornima Films. There is no pleading in the plaint that the Video rights, T.V. rights include Satellite rights, and that the plaintiff is entitled to telecast the picture through Satellite. The producer of the picture Oru Iniya Udayam viz. Pondu Cine Arts assigned the entire copyright and world negative rights in favour of M/s. Poornima Films. All the rights in respect of the picture become the property of the World Negative Rights Holder. The said Poornima Films assigned the entire copyright including the world negative rights in favour of M/s. O.K. Films, M/s. Vijaya Productions Pvt. Ltd. The said O.K. Films by agreement dated 3.1.94, assigned the copyright for satellite television absolutely in favour of M /s. Sumahgali Publications Pvt. Ltd. in which Sun TV is only a Unit. Clause 8 of the said agreement specifically provides that the sole and conclusive rights for Satellite TV/Broadcast vest with the defendant. As per the agreement dated 6.9.86 the plaintiff is only having T.V. right for overseas territories and video rights. Video rights certainly do not confer any rights on the plaintiff for broadcast through satellite. There is no mention of the word ‘satellite television’ in the alleged agreements put forward by the plaintiff. Likewise, the copyright of the film ‘Nooravathu Naal’ for satellite television was assigned by Thiru S.N.S. Thirumal, proprietor of Thirupathi Swami Pictures, in favour of M/s. Sumangali Publications Pvt. Ltd. under agreement dated 28.12.1993. In the face of the abovesaid two agreements, the defendant alone is entitled to such rights and they are entitled to broadcast the same through the satellite television. It is specifically mentioned in the agreement dated 20.5.91 that “this does not include telecasting of the movie in Television in and outside India and any other mechanism”. Satellite Television right is an independent right. Hence the suit may be dismissed with costs. 4. The following issues were framed 1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration and injunction as prayed for? 2) Whether the limited copyright viz. video rights include TV and Satellite TV Rights? 3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to all the copyrights in the suit pictures for the overseas territories? 4) Whether the defendant has acquired the limited copyright viz. Satellite TV Rights in the suit pictures? 5) To what other reliefs are the parties entitled to? 5. 2) Whether the limited copyright viz. video rights include TV and Satellite TV Rights? 3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to all the copyrights in the suit pictures for the overseas territories? 4) Whether the defendant has acquired the limited copyright viz. Satellite TV Rights in the suit pictures? 5) To what other reliefs are the parties entitled to? 5. ISSUES 1 to 5 : The plaintiff has filed the suit seeking for a declaration that they are the absolute owner of the limited copyright viz. 8mm, 16mm, 35 mm and T.V. rights for the entire world in the picture “Oru Iniya Udayam” Tamil colour and video and television rights for the entire India in the picture “Noravzathu Naal” tamil colour and for a consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendant from infringing the plaintiffs limited TV rights in overseas territories, video and satellite television right i n the entire world in respect of the said pictures by telecasting the same. 6. The case of the plaintiff is that under the agreement dated 6.9.86, they acquired rights of exhibition, exploitation and distribution of the picture “Oru Iniya Udhayam” and Television media for the entire overseas territories and Video rights for the entire world. They also acquired right to exploit the video rights and television rights in the picture “Nooravathu Naal” under the agreement dt. 19.8.92. The defendant announced in their programmes that the said pictures are going to be telecast through Satellite Communication Network. The defendant refuted the claim of the plaintiff stating that the declaration in respect of satellite right has not been specifically prayed by the plaintiff. Likewise there is no pleading that the video rights and TV rights include satellite rights. The word “Satellite Television” is not mentioned in any of the agreements produced by the plaintiff. 7. Arguing for the plaintiff, the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Likewise there is no pleading that the video rights and TV rights include satellite rights. The word “Satellite Television” is not mentioned in any of the agreements produced by the plaintiff. 7. Arguing for the plaintiff, the learned Senior Counsel Mr. R. Krishnaswami would submit that the plaintiff is carrying on its business in exhibition, exploitation and distribution of motion pictures, commercial and non-commercial in all gauges; that during the course of its business it acquired rights of exhibition, exploitation and distribution of the picture “Oru Iniya Udayam” by entering into Ex.P1 agreement dated 6.9.86; that the producer Pondu Cine Arts for valid consideration and that in respect of the Second Film “Noorvathu Naal” by entering into an agreement dated 19.8.92 as found under Ex.P2 from one Swastik Video Vision, who in turn has acquired the said rights from its producers and thus the plaintiff has acquired the limited copyright for exploiting the same without any interference whatsoever; that while so, the defendant, a television communication center who is transmitting regional language programmes announced in its programmes that they were going to telecast the abovesaid two pictur es through satellite communication network; that when the defendant was informed about the rights of the plaintiff, there was no proper response or acceptable answer, that the plaintiff is vested with the limited copyright of these pictures and any telecast of the same by the defendant without the consent of the plaintiff, would be an infringement of the plaintiffs copyright, Added further the learned senior Counsel that the assignment of the copyrights viz. the Indian Video Rights by the producer woul d include the satellite rights also; that the copyright is a bundle of rights and a single cinematograph work will have multiplicity of copyrights; that cinematograph film is defined under S. 2(f) of the Copyright Act as one which will be construed as including any work produced by any process analogous to cinematography including video films; that S. 2(ff) defines communication to public and under the explanation in the said clause “communication through satellite on cable, etc shall be deemed to be co mmunication to public: that under the said provisions of the Act, broadcast is defined as communication to public by any means of any wireless diffusion wherein any one or more of the forms, size, sound or visual images or communication by wire; that the video rights, which was assigned by the producer to the plaintiffs predecessor in title includes the satellite right; that the producer in respect of the picture “Oru Iniya Udayam” by the agreement under Ex.P1 dated 6.9.86 assigned to the plaintiff, the rights of exhibition, exploitation and distribution of the said picture in 35mm, 16mm, 8 mm, TV rights and also video rights in the picture; that the video rights in the cinematograph work has been exhibited in the manner defined under S. 2(f) of the copyright Act and it is being broadcasted in the manner defined under Ss2(dd) and 2(ff) of the Copyright Act; that in regard to the picture “Noorvathu Naal”, the predecessor in title of the plaintiff, who was the producer of the picture, assigned by an agreement dated 4.4.1988, the video rights wherein it was granted to the plaintiff predecessor in title the full exploitation of the video cassettes, that the assignor of the plaintiff has categorically stated that video rights included the exhibition of the said picture by means of wireless diffusion and by wire and commun ication to public that if the video rights assigned to the plaintiff included satellite rights also, then the defendant would have no right in respect of the above two pictures; that it is true that satellite right is not defined in the Act, but it is only an inclusive definition coming under S. 2(ff) within the meaning of the word communication to public; that a few decisions of this Court, Bombay High Court and Apex Court threw some light on the meaning of the term video rights, according to which the video and television were appliances capable of use for the size, light, images and sound and would fall within the definition of telegraph and hence the inclusive definition would mean the rights granted, as video rights would also include the exhibition of picture through TV screen. In support of his contention, the learned Senior Counsel relied on the decisions reported in 1991 1 L.W. 220, 1994 (2) L.W. 158 , AIR 2000 Bombay High Court 416, AIR 1993 SC 2328 and thus it is a fit case where the Court has to give a declaration as asked for along with the consequential injunction. 8. Countering to everyone of the above contentions of the plaintiffs side the learned Counsel appearing for the defendant Mr. N.S. Varadachari with vigour and vehemence would submit that the plaintiff has filed the suit seeking the reliefs of declaration and consequential injunction under two agreements dated 6.9.86 in respect of the picture ‘Oru Iniya Udayam’ and another agreement dated 19.8.82 in respect of “Noorvathu Naal”, to which the plaintiff is not entitled, since the defendant has acquired satellite rights from the World Negative rights holder viz. M/s. O.K. Films for the picture “Oru Iniya Udayam’ under agreement dt.3.1.94 as found under Ex.D5 and has also acquired the satellite broadcasting of the picture “Nooravathu Naal” from the producer M/s. Thirupathiswamy Pictures under the agreement dated 28.12.1993; that the defendant has obtained a letter dt.3.1.1994 for the supply of negatives to the defendant in respect of the picture “Oru Iniya Udayam” written by M/s. O.K. Films to Vijaya Productions Pvt. Limited for transferring it to ‘U’ Matic tapes for the purpose of satellite broadcasting under Ex.D6; that the defendant has also obtained a letter from Thirupathi Swami Pictures, producer of ‘Nooravathu Naal’ addressed to M/s. Vijaya Productions P. Ltd. for supply of negatives of the picture to the defendant for preparation of ‘U’ Matic tape required for satellite broadcasting; that in the plaint, there was no pleading that the plaintiff was entitled to telecast the pictures through satellite broadcast; that none of the agreements relied on by the plaintiff contain any specific assignment of its rights; that in the case of ‘Oru Iniya Udayam’, even as per the agreement relied on by the plaintiff dated 6.9.86, the plaintiffs are having only rights for overseas territories and video rights, which cannot confer any right on the plaintiff through satellite; that it was significant to note that the alleged rights claimed by the plaintiff can only be TV rights through overseas territories, which m eans Home TV only; that the plaintiff did not claim satellite broadcasting rights in the relief of declaration prayed for by them, though it has added the satellite rights only in the injunction prayer; that this itself will show that the plaintiff was aware of the fact that they did not acquire satellite broadcasting rights under the agreements Exs.P1 and P2 relied on by them; that though the plaintiff is now seeking to putforth the plea that the words “video rights for the entire world” are what is stated as “video rights” would include satellite broadcasting rights also, such a plea has not been specifically mentioned in the plaint; that S. 1 8(2) of the Copyright Act is referred to in S. 19(2), which clearly provides that the assignment of copy right in any work should clearly indicate the rights proposed to the assignment and the assignee cannot claim anything more then the right stated to have been assigned to him under the agreement; that the satellite TV rights were entirely different from the other rights and the said right is new, separate and different sequence of right and such a right should be specifically contemplated or assigned under the agreement; that the satellite television broadcasting right is entirely different from the television rights for overseas territories; that the satellite rights involve in the preparation of ‘U’ Matic tape and the sole and exclusive right for satellite TV broadcasting was entirely different that such a right was never assigned to the plaintiff under the said agreements relied on by them; that the plaintiff cannot rely on some of the provisions and definition clauses of the Copyright Act to co ntend that the words used therein would include satellite rights also; that such a plea cannot be permitted for the reason that the assignment of the copy right must be specific with regard to the rights assigned under the provisions of S. 19(2) of the Copy Rights Act; that the plaintiff cannot rest his case on the definition clauses because they cannot give rise to a cause of action; that the present Sections 2(d)(d) and 2(f) and 2(f)(f) have been substituted by Act 34/94 with effect from 10.5.95; that if at all the plaintiff wanted to say that the satellite rights were included in the video rights under Exs.P1 and P2, admittedly, entered into prior to 10.5.95, the plaintiff cannot seek to lay any claim under the amended Act, which came into force after the date of the agreements and after filing of the present suit; and thus plaintiff cannot claim any retrospective effect; that the suit has got to be dismissed for the non-joinder of necessary parties also; that the plaintiff has not made the owner of the films viz. the producers as parties to the suit; that the decision relied on by the plaintiffs side reported in AI R 1993 Supreme Court 2328 could have no application to the present case; that the decision reported in 1991 I L.W. 220 was a case relating to the assignment of negative rights of the picture; that the decisions in 1994 II L.W. 158 and AIR 2000 Bombay 416 were only in an interlocutory application; that the plaintiff who has come forward to seek the relief of declaration, has to establish its rights, but admittedly the plaintiff has not filed the connected documents as far as the picture ‘Nooravathu Naal’ is concerned, that it has already been held by this Court in 1998 II L.W. 718 and in C.S. No. 803 of 1994 dated 15.2.2000 that satellite rights is a new, separate and distinct right and the same cannot be claimed as inclusive right and thus the plaintiff without any right available in its favour have come forward stating that their right has been infringed by the defendant; that defendant has acquired satellite right for broadcasting and has been enjoying the same and thus the plaintiff has filed the suit without right and only on misconception of law and hence the request of the plaintiff has got to be rejected. 9. Answering to the above contentions of the defendants side, the learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff would submit that the defendant has totally misunderstood the legal plea of the plaintiff; that it is clearly stated in the plaint that the rights of the plaintiff are being interferred with by the defendant through the satellite communication network; that video rights would include the satellite too and that since the defendant attempted to interfere with the satellite telecast of the plaintiff, specific injunction is prayed for. 10. The plaintiff has sought for declaration as to its copyright in respect of two films and consequential permanent injunction. Para 8 of the plaint wherein the reliefs are sought for by the plaintiff runs as follows: — “a. For a declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the limited copyright viz., 8mm, 16mm, 35mm and TV rights for the entire world in the picture “Oru Iniya Udayam” Tamil colour and video and television rights for the entire India in the picture “Nooravathu Naal” Tamil Colour. b. For a permanent injunction restraining the defendant their men, agents, servants or any other person acting on their behalf from infringing the plaintiffs limited copyright is 8mm, 16mm, 35mm TV rights in Overseas Territories, Video and Satellite Television right in the entire world in the pictures “Oru Iniya Udayam” and Nooravathu Naal Tamil Colour by telecasting the same”. A very reading of the above prayer would reveal that the plaintiff has sought for a declaration that they are the absolute owner of the limited copyright viz. 8mm, 16mm, 35mm and TV rights for the entire world in the picture Oru Iniya Udayam’ and video and television rights for the entire India in ‘Nooravathu Naal’, but has not asked for any declaration that they are entitled to telecast the said pictures through satellite. It is true that the plaintiff has added the words “satellite rights” in column ‘b’ stated above, seeking for permanent injunction which is a consequential relief. It is doubtful whether the consequential relief can be asked for in the absence of the pleading for the main relief. The Court is afraid whether it can accept the contention put forth by the learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff that the declaration sought for in column ‘a’ though not specifically stated will also include satellite right also. A scrutiny of the plaint would clearly reveal that the plaintiff has nowhere specifically pleaded that they were either given satellite rights or what was assigned to them under the agreement would include satellite rights or they were entitled to telecast the pictures through satellite broadcast. What are all pleaded in the plaint is that “thus the plaintiff has acquired the limited copyright of exhibition, exploitation and distribution and has been exploiting the same without any interference whatever”. Here the Court has to necessarily say that the plaint lacks requisite and necessary pleading in respect of the reliefs sought for. An argument is advanced that the plaintiff is entitled for declaration that their video rights would include satellite broadcasting rights also. 11. The plaintiff who claims the above reliefs has relied on the two agreements as found under Exs.P1 and P2 dated 6.9.86 and 19.8.92 respectively. An argument is advanced that the plaintiff is entitled for declaration that their video rights would include satellite broadcasting rights also. 11. The plaintiff who claims the above reliefs has relied on the two agreements as found under Exs.P1 and P2 dated 6.9.86 and 19.8.92 respectively. The first agreement dated 6.9.86 was entered into between the producer Pondu Cine Arts and the plaintiff in respect of the film ‘Oru Iniya Udayam’, wherein they have been assigned the lease rights of exhibition, exploitation and distribution of the picture. Clause 5 in Ex.P1 agreement reads as follows: “The Lessees are hereby irrevocably authorised by the Lessors to sell, dispose, assign, lease the video cassettes/tapes/Discs produced by the lessees to any other party, person or any of them or any part thereof at the sole discretion of the Lessees”. The plaintiff has entered into Ex.P2 agreement on 19.8.92 with M/s. Swastik Video Vision wherein they were assigned the video rights which are detailed as Indian video Lease Rights under clause 1, which reads as follows: “The Lessors hereby agree and grant on lease the Indian Video Lease Rights and the rights for performing the exhibition of the picture in any mode of visual or accoustic presentation for commercial and noncommercial exploitation, exhibition, distribution, preparing manufacturing Master U-matic Video Cassettes, copies thereto, lending the cassettes, for a perpetual period of the picture mentioned below referred to as the Leased period in consideration of a total royalty amount as mentioned below against each film for the entire India mentioned hereunder hereinafter referred to as the leased territory” A scrutiny of the first agreement dated 6.9.86 relied on by the plaintiff will clearly reveal that in respect of the film ‘Oru Iniya Udayam’, the plaintiff have been assigned TV rights for overseas territories and video rights only. What has been assigned by the lessor to the lessee, the plaintiff herein under the next agreement dated 19.8.92 in respect of the film ‘Nooravathu Naal’ is the Indian Video Lease Rights and the rights for performing the exhibition of the picture. The assignment in Ex.P12 agreement was the exclusive rights of exhibition, exploitation and distribution of Indian Video rights, and for broadcasting rights by means of the systems for reproducing actual or recorded scene. As seen above nowhere the word ‘satellite’ has been mentioned in any of the agreements relied on by the plaintiff. 12. The assignment in Ex.P12 agreement was the exclusive rights of exhibition, exploitation and distribution of Indian Video rights, and for broadcasting rights by means of the systems for reproducing actual or recorded scene. As seen above nowhere the word ‘satellite’ has been mentioned in any of the agreements relied on by the plaintiff. 12. It is not in dispute that the defendant, a unit of Sumangali Publications Private Limited is carrying on the business of exhibiting pictures through satellite television. In the instant suit, the plaintiff has challenged the right of the defendant to telecast the above two pictures by means of satellite television alleging that as per the agreements under Exs.P1 and P2 in favour of the plaintiff, they are having the satellite right, which is being strongly contested by the defendant. At the juncture the Court has to necessarily look into the terms and conditions Exs.P1 and P2 agreements in order to understand the nature of the rights, the plaintiff has acquired and in order to decide the question in controversy. A reading of these two agreements Ex.P1 and P2 will make it explicit that these agreements as per which the plaintiff has made its claim, do not contain anywhere the right of the plaintiff to telecast the pictures through satellite television. 13. Apart from vehemently opposing the claim for the stated reliefs by the plaintiffs side, the defendant relying on two agreements first one dated 3.1.94 as found under Ex.D5 executed by M/s O.K. Films in favour of M/s. Sumangali Publications Pvt. Ltd. of which the defendants is a unit and another agreement dated 28.12.93 as found under Ex.D1 executed by one S.N.S. Thirumal Proprietor of Thirupathi Swami Pictures in favour of the said Sumangali Publications Pvt. Ltd would urge that the defendant is entit led to the copy right for telecasting the said two films viz. ‘Oru Iniya Udayam’ and ‘Nooravathu Naal’ through satellite cable, wire, wireless or through any other system or any other forms, means and modes other than through Doordarshans terrestrial primary channel without restriction of geographical area. Hence it has become necessary to have a perusal of these agreements relied on by the defendant. The agreement relied on by the defendant dated 28.12.93 is marked as Ex.D1. Hence it has become necessary to have a perusal of these agreements relied on by the defendant. The agreement relied on by the defendant dated 28.12.93 is marked as Ex.D1. It was an agreement entered into between M/s. Thirupathi Swami Pictures by its proprietor S.N.S. Thirumal and Sumangali Publications Pvt. Ltd. wherein clauses 2, 6, 7 and 8(a) & (b) read as follows: “2. The assignment of copyright for the said film/s for Satellite television broadcast means, the absolute assignment to the assignees or their authorised persons, of the copyright for broadcasting the said films through satellite, cable, wire, wireless or through any other system or any other forms, means and modes other than through Doordarshans terrestrial primary channel, without restriction of geographical area. 6. The assignors shall give to the assignees as and when required one positive/negative print of the said films in very good condition. The above said positive/negative print will be returned immediately after transferring to a U-matic Tape. 7. The Assignees shall have full, complete and unrestricted right to alter, delete, or cut any portion or add any portion of other film/s or documentaries, advertisements or sound, in the said films either before or after or intervening including the right to make the videograms, discs, cassettes, tapes in respect of songs, dialogues scenes, extracts and/or combinations thereof the said films. In short, the assignees shall have unrestricted rights to use the said films or video grams, cassettes, discs, tapes for any purpose in any manner whatsoever for satellite TV broadcast purpose as specified in clause No. 2. 8. For further clarification it is agreed that the rights conferred by the assignor to the assignee hereunder are: — (a) The sole and exclusive rights for the satellite TV Broadcast for 25 (Twenty five) years; (b) To distribute the said films for the purpose of satellite TV Broadcast as understood in clause 2”. The defendant has marked a document as Ex.D5 dated 3.1.94, which is an agreement entered into between M/s. O.K. Films and Sumangali Publications Pvt. Ltd. The clauses 2, 6, 7 & 8(a) & (b) in Ex.D5 read as follows: — 2. The defendant has marked a document as Ex.D5 dated 3.1.94, which is an agreement entered into between M/s. O.K. Films and Sumangali Publications Pvt. Ltd. The clauses 2, 6, 7 & 8(a) & (b) in Ex.D5 read as follows: — 2. The assignment of copyright for the said film/s for satellite television broadcast means, the absolute assignment to the assignees or their authorised persons, of the copy right for broad casting the said film/s through satellite, cable, wire, wireless or through any other system or any other forms, means and modes other than through Doordarshans terrestrial primary channel, without restriction of geographical area. 6. The assignors shall give to the assignees and when required the positive/negative print of the said films in very good condition. The above said positive/negative print will be returned immediately after transferring to a U-matic tape. 7. The Assignees shall have full, complete and un-restricted right to alter, delete, or cut any portion or add any portion of other film/s or documentaries, advertisements or sound, in the said films either before or after or intervening including the right to make the videograms, discs, cassettes, tapes in respect of songs, dialogues scenes, extracts and or combinations thereof the said films. In short, the assignees shall have unrestricted rights to use the said films or videograms, cassettes, discs, tapes for any purpose in any manner whatsoever for satellite TV broadcast purpose as specified in clause No. 2. 8. For further clarification it is agreed that the rights conferred by the assignor to the assignee hereunder are: (a) The sole and exclusive rights for the satellite TV broadcast for 25 (twenty five) years. (b) To distribute the said films for the purpose of satellite TV broadcast as understood in clause 2”. 14. It is true that the film ‘Oru Iniya Udayam’ was produced by Pondu Cine Arts, who have assigned the entire copyright and world negative rights in favour of M/s. Poornima Films, who in turn have assigned the entire copyright including the world negative rights in favour of M/s. O.K. Films by an agreement dated 3.4.93 as found under Ex.D3. Clauses 1 and 4 in Ex.D3 read as follows; “1. Clauses 1 and 4 in Ex.D3 read as follows; “1. The assignor under this agreement assign the entire copyright and world negative rights of the abovesaid picture titled ‘Oru Iniya Udayam’ in 35 mm colour and in all other dimensions for a perpetual period of 99 (ninetynine) years from the date of this agreement with all the areas open from today. 4. The assignor hereby agree to irrevocably authorise Vijaya Colour Laboratory, Madras where the negatives of the said picture (both picture and sound) are kept to transfer the negatives in favour of the assignee and to keep the same in their name as absolute owners of the negatives for a period of 99 years from today and act 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”. The defendant has filed a letter dated 8.6.93 as found under Ex.D4 addressed to O.K. Films by Vijaya Productions Pvt. Ltd. confirming that they have acquired the world negative rights and they have transferred the same to M/s. O.K. Films. Clause 1 in Ex.D4 reads as follows. “As per the irrevocable instructions of M/s. Poornima Films, Madras vide their letter dated 8.5.93 which was received by us on 5.6.93 (which you too have ratified), we hereby confirm that they have sold the entire world negative rights of the above picture in 35mm and in all other dimensions including world television, world video exploitation and all other advances future scientific technology right to you for a period of 99 (ninety nine) years from 8.5.93. They have also authorised us to transfer and deliver and keep the negatives (both picture and sound) including light cards of the above said picture in your name and to act as per your instructions with regard to the above said film in future”. Ex.D6 is a copy of the letter dated 3.1.94 addressed by O.K. Films to M/s. Vijaya Productions P. Ltd. wherein they have made a request to deliver the picture and sound negatives of three films including ‘Oru Iniya Udayam’ to M/s. Sumangali Publications Pvt. Ltd. for transferring to U-Matic tape whenever they require. 15. Ex.D6 is a copy of the letter dated 3.1.94 addressed by O.K. Films to M/s. Vijaya Productions P. Ltd. wherein they have made a request to deliver the picture and sound negatives of three films including ‘Oru Iniya Udayam’ to M/s. Sumangali Publications Pvt. Ltd. for transferring to U-Matic tape whenever they require. 15. After careful perusal of the above clauses in the agreements executed in favour of the defendant, the Court has to necessarily agree with the defendant that they have been assigned specific rights for satellite broadcasting of both the pictures. Under such circumstances, the contention of the defendants side that the defendant has acquired the specific rights for satellite broadcasting of the said pictures cannot be disputed by the plaintiff. 16. Advancing his further arguments for the plaintiff, the learned Senior counsel would submit that the words “video rights for the entire world” found in the agreements relied on by the plaintiff would mean and include satellite broadcasting rights also and since the defendant has attempted to interfere with the satellite telecast of the plaintiff, which is part of video rights assigned to them, specific injunction has been asked for. The provision of law, which is relevant to decide the controversy betwe en the parties is Ss. 18(2) and 19(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 which read as follows. “18(2): Where the assignee of a 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 purposes of this Act as the owner of copyright and the provisions of this Act shall have effect accordingly. 19(2): The assignment of copyright in any work shall identify such work, and shall specify the rights assigned and the duration and territorial extent of such assignment”. A reading of the said provision would make it clear that any assignment of any copyright in any work should clearly indicate the rights proposed to be assigned and hence the assignee cannot claim anything more than the rights assigned to him under the concerned agreement. Under the provisions of the Copyright Act, the right assigned may be either in existing work or in future work, which may be either assigned wholly or partially, and either jointly or subject to limitation. Under the provisions of the Copyright Act, the right assigned may be either in existing work or in future work, which may be either assigned wholly or partially, and either jointly or subject to limitation. But the rights proposed to be assigned have to be clearly indicated in the instrument of assignment. It is clear from the provisions of S. 19 of the Act that the assignment of the copyright must be in writing and the assignment must be in clear terms stating the rights proposed to be assigned. The law has made it clear that no other mode of assignment is valid. The statute specifically provides that the assignment of the copyright must be in writing and signed by the assignor, and thus the oral assignment is neither permissible nor valid. Unless and until the rights proposed to be assigned are clearly indicated in the written instrument of assignment, the assignee cannot make a claim in respect of a right which is not assigned. In view of S. 19(2) of the Copyright Act, the plaintiff cannot claim anything more than the rights assigned to them under the two agreements to Ex.P1 and P2 relied upon by them. 17. Law has made it compulsory that any assignment of copyright should be by way of a written instrument. The words “shall specify the rights assigned” employed in S. 19(2) of the Act would clearly indicate that the rights assigned in favour of the assignee should be specifically stated. The legislative intent of employing these words “specify the rights” should be only with an object to indicate that an assignee who is given a specific right cannot use more or beyond the right that is assigned to him in h is favour. Allowing an assignee of a copyright under an agreement to enlarge any right already assigned would not only be detrimental and prejudicial to the interest of the assignor in respect of the rights reserved by him but also would cause infringement of the rights of the other assignees and it would also be against the very legislative intent. 18. Added further the learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff that the copyright is a bundle of rights and a single cinematograph work will have multiplicity of copyrights and in a film, story, scenic dialogues, lyrics, exhibition rights, negative rights, language rights, etc. 18. Added further the learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff that the copyright is a bundle of rights and a single cinematograph work will have multiplicity of copyrights and in a film, story, scenic dialogues, lyrics, exhibition rights, negative rights, language rights, etc. are independent rights, that S. 2(f) of the Copyright Act defines cinematograph film as one which would be construed as including any work produced by any process anaglogous to cinematography including video films and S. 2(ff) defines communication to public and under the explanation in the said clause communication through satellite on cable, etc, shall be deemed to be communication to public and under clause 2(dd) broadcast is defined as communication to public by any means of any wireless diffusion wherein any one or more of the forms, size, sound or visual images or communication by wire; and hence though the satellite right is not defined in the Act, S. 2(ff) would be an inclusive definition with the meaning of the wire communication to public and hence the assignment of video rights as found in Exs.P1 and P2 would include the satellite rights also. 19. The Court is unable to appreciate or countenance the above contention of the plaintiffs side for more reasons than one. The court is of the view that by making the contention, the plaintiff without requisite pleading and necessary evidence has made a feeble attempt by seeking help under some provisions of the Copyright Act. Nowhere the plaintiff has stated in the plaint that they are entitled to telecast the pictures through satellite broadcast. As stated above, the agreement under Exs.P1 and P2 relied on by the plaintiff, do not speak of any specific assignment of the said rights. Comparison of the agreements filed by the plaintiff and the defendant would clearly indicate that what has been assigned to be plaintiff is only a limited right while what has been assigned to the defendant is an unlimited right. While making an assignment of copyright compulsorily written, the law would indicate that any assignment of a copyright should be clearly indicted in the instrument. Needless to say that an assignee of a copyright under the instrument cannot claim anything more than what has been assigned to him. Even in the agreements relied on by the plaintiff, they have treated the TV rights for overseas territories/video rights as separate rights. Needless to say that an assignee of a copyright under the instrument cannot claim anything more than what has been assigned to him. Even in the agreements relied on by the plaintiff, they have treated the TV rights for overseas territories/video rights as separate rights. What has been given to the plaintiff under the said agreements was only the TV rights in overseas territories and video rights. The plaintiff is unable to show how these specific rights assigned in favour of the plaintiff under the agreements Exs.P1 and P2 were either affected or infringed. Thus it would be clear that the plaintiff who was not assigned with the satellite broadcasting right specifically has come forward to complain of infringement of that right. While cassettes are used for home TV, U-matic tapes are used for satellite broadcasting. Satellite TV broadcasting right is a separate, independent and specific right. It cannot be disputed that the satellite television different from the ordinary territorial television and satellite broadcasting can reach a very much larger audience than any ordinary territorial television and satellite broadcasting crosses many countries. Hence the Court may hasten to say that the plaintiff has no cause of action for filing the suit, since the plaintiff cannot be permitted to say the infringement of a right which is not available to him. Having agreed upon for a restricted video right which the plaintiff themselves call as limited copyright have now come forward to state that their right includes right to exploit or telecast the pictures through satellite television. On the other hand the rights assigned to the defendant as seen from the agreements relied on by the defendant were specifically for broadcasting the films through satellite. The Court is able to see force in the contention put forth by the defendants side that the satellite television was not even in contemplation in the year 1986, when the plaintiff has entered into Exs.P1 and P2 agreements. Now the plaintiff cannot be permitted to say that what was assigned to them under the said agreements would include satellite right also. 20. The next contention urged by the defendants side was that the suit is liable to be dismissed for the non-joinder of the necessary parties, viz. the owners of the pictures in question. The learned counsel for the defendant relied on S. 61 of the Copyright Act in this regard. 20. The next contention urged by the defendants side was that the suit is liable to be dismissed for the non-joinder of the necessary parties, viz. the owners of the pictures in question. The learned counsel for the defendant relied on S. 61 of the Copyright Act in this regard. Countering to the above contention, the learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff would urge that the owners of the pictures need not be joined as parties to this suit, since as per the provisions of S. 18(2) where the assignee of a 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 owners of the copyright. The Court is of the view that the contention put forth by the plaintiffs side has to be necessarily accepted since it is legally correct and sound. In the instant case, the plaintiff has relied upon Exs.P1 and P2 agreements in which right to satellite broadcast is not specifically given and the plaintiff would urge that though not stated in the agreements, the words video rights would mean and include the satellite rights also, which is being challenged by the defendant Under the circumstances, the only competent person to speak about the intention of the parties and the nature of the right what was assigned under the document would be the owner of the picture and in his absence, the intention of the parties to the agreements cannot be judged at all and thus, as rightly contended by the defendants side, the original owner of the copyright of the picture is the necessary party, without whose presence the plaintiff cannot establish the right what was assigned to them. 21. The learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff relying on the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1993 Supreme Court 2328 (Laxmi Video Theatre v. State of Haryana) would submit the Apex Court had given a verdict that anything shown on the TV screens would be a single right. 21. The learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff relying on the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1993 Supreme Court 2328 (Laxmi Video Theatre v. State of Haryana) would submit the Apex Court had given a verdict that anything shown on the TV screens would be a single right. In that case, the Supreme Court has held as follows: “Video cassette recorder and video cassette player are within the ambit of the definition of ‘Cinematograph’ contained in Section 2(a) of the Punjab Act and the owners thereof in order to carry on the business of running video parlours/or showing prerecorded cassettes of films through the medium of VCR/VCP must obtain a licence in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules”. The Court is of the view that the above decision relied on by the plaintiff would not be of any help to them. The case which has come before the Supreme Court for consideration was one which arose under the Cinematograph Act and the exhibition of pictures in video parlour, where a licence was necessary. Apart from that as stated above, satellite right is a specific, independent and separate right. It cannot be said that TV rights for overseas territories would include satellite right. In the absence of requisite pleading and specific assignment of the said right as to the satellite broadcasting in the agreements Exs.P1 and P2 relied upon by the plaintiff and in the absence of the necessary party viz. the owners of such pictures, the plaintiff cannot place reliance on the provisions and decisions pertaining to cinematograph Act and ask for the reliefs to be granted. For all the reasons stated and discussions made above, the plaintiff is not entitled to the reliefs as asked for. All the above issues are answered accordingly. 22. In the result, this suit is dismissed, but no order as to the costs.