Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 556 (MAD)

Thirumalai v. Kamaraj Memorial Edu Trust

2013-01-24

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2013
Judgment Vinod K. Sharma, J. 1. The plaintiff/non applicant has filed a suit for recovery of Rs.25,58,950/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Fifty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred and Fifty only) against defendant no.1, on the ground that they had some real estate dealing commencing from 10.01.2008 onwards. The plaintiff/respondent has been making payment to defendant no.1 by way of cash and through cheques over a period of time till July, 2008. 2. The case of the plaintiff/respondent is that till July 2008, defendant no.1 was paid a sum of Rs.72,04,250/- (Rupees Seventy Two Lakhs Four Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty only). 3. It is pleaded case of the plaintiff/non applicant, that defendant no.1 executed certain sale deeds in favour of the plaintiff/non applicant for the amount received. But many of the sale deeds were found to be an act of forgery and fabrication. The plaintiff therefore lodged a police complaint before the Police authorities at Madurai. 4. It is further case of the plaintiff/non applicant, that on enquiry, it was revealed that defendant no.1 has illegally diverted the fund of plaintiff/non applicant towards production of a film titled “AGAM PURAM” starring Shyam and directed by the defendant no.2 herein. The film is processed at third defendant's lab. 5. It is also pleaded case of the plaintiff/non applicant, that attempt is made by defendant no.1 to give representation as though defendant no.2 has taken over the production of the film, though it was initially produced by defendant no.1. 6. It is submitted, that before defendant no.2 took over the film, 40% of the production had already been taken place. The arrangement between defendant nos.1 & 2 is said to be collusive, therefore, decree is claimed against defendant nos.1 & 2. 7. The applicant/defendant no.2 submits, that the plaintiff/non applicant is trying to blackmail the defendant no.2 by restraining him to release the film titled "AGAM PURAM", that wrong allegations have been made with regard to diversion of fund and defendant no.2 has been impleaded as party being assignee of copyright in respect of the negative rights of the film. 8. It is the case of applicant/defendant no.2, that he had got the negatives transferred of the said unfinished picture from the 1st defendant on 02.08.2008 itself and became the absolute owner of the negatives / copyright right from 02.08.2008 and that the film was completed by defendant no.2. 9. 8. It is the case of applicant/defendant no.2, that he had got the negatives transferred of the said unfinished picture from the 1st defendant on 02.08.2008 itself and became the absolute owner of the negatives / copyright right from 02.08.2008 and that the film was completed by defendant no.2. 9. It is also the case of the applicant/defendant no.2, that the plaintiff/non applicant is in know of the fact, that defendant no.1 could not have completed the film for want of fund, therefore, the suit was filed after defendant no.2 acquiring the negative rights. 10. The averments made in the application itself show, that decree is claimed against defendant no.2 by alleging collusion between defendant nos.1 & 2. It will be for the plaintiff/respondent to prove the allegations. But reading of the plaint shows specific pleadings against the applicant/defendant no.2 and decree is also claimed against defendant no.2. Therefore, the suit cannot be said to be suffering from mis-joinder of parties to entitle the applicant/defendant no.2 to seek deletion of name. The averments made in this application can be a good ground to contest the application for interim injunction, but cannot be the ground to delete the name of applicant/defendant no.2 from the memo of party. 11. No merits. Dismissed. No costs.