JUDGMENT : Prayer: Civil suit filed under Order Section 55 and 62 of the Copy Right Act, 1957 r/w Or.VI Rule 1 of O.S. Rules and Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C. to direct the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.1,03,99,295.45 along with interest @ 12% p.a. on Rs.84,54,714.41 from the date of plaint till date of realisation with costs. This suit has been filed for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from in any manner infringing the Plaintiff's copy right in respect of the exclusive satellite television telecast and also for damages of Rs.1,00,000/- along with cost. 2. The brief facts of the Plaintiff's case is as follows: 2(a) The Defendants 1 and 2 are the producers of the suit films 10 in numbers. The Plaintiff by agreement dated 25.03.2008 acquired sole and exclusive right in respect of the entire world satellite and telecast rights and cable TV rights for a period of 10 years from the date of handing over Good telecast quality recorded Beta can cassettes for the suit films to the Plaintiff. Third Defendant acquired the said rights from the First and Second Defendants for a period of 5 years non-exclusives by an agreement dated 5.6.2000. Since the third Defendant neither paid the consideration and since the period had come to an end no rights were vested in them. 2(b) The Plaintiff also issued a letter 1.7.2008 to the Third Defendant setting out the fact that the Plaintiff had acquired the copyright for the Ten suit schedule cinematograph Films. However, the Plaintiff came to learn from the television program broadcasting page of the Malayalam Newspaper 'Malayala Manorama' that the Third Defendant was going to telecast the cinema, “Chattakari” on the Kairali Channel on 17.7.2008. Plaintiff issued telegram to the Third Defendant and also informed the same to the First and Second Defendants. Similarly the Third Defendant also advertised the Malayalam film “Vazhvemayam” was going to be telecasted on 8.9.2008. Therefore, again the Plaintiff issued telegram, thereby the Third Defendant has infringed the Plaintiff's copy right. Hence the suit. 3. First and Second Defendants filed written statement that the First Defendant assigned the rights to M/s.S.P.Kothari & Sons with regard to the exploitation of the Malayalam Films in cinema theaters throughout India for a period of 99 years by agreement dated 18.06.1979. Hence the suit. 3. First and Second Defendants filed written statement that the First Defendant assigned the rights to M/s.S.P.Kothari & Sons with regard to the exploitation of the Malayalam Films in cinema theaters throughout India for a period of 99 years by agreement dated 18.06.1979. No copyright for telecasting any of the films through satellite, cable or direct to home has been assigned to the said M/s.S.P.Kothari & Sons under the said agreement dated 18.06.1979. The Third Defendant was well aware of the agreement between the First Defendant and M/s.S.P.Kothari & sons and agreed for the assignment of telecasting right. Therefore, First Defendant entered into an agreement with the Third Defendant dated 5.6.2000 for a consideration of Rs.5,00,000/- for the period from 8.3.2002 to 7.3.2007. As the Third Defendant did not perform their part of contract he lost the rights under the said deed of assignment. It is their contention that no copy right for telecasting through satellite was assigned to M/s.S.P.Kothari & Sons. 4. The Third Defendant filed a statement to the effect that suit is not maintainable before this Court. On 18.06.1979 by way of two agreements, the Second Defendant transferred the “All India negative rights and exclusive rights of distribution, exhibition and exploitation throughout India together with the right to hold the negatives” of the suit films to M/s. S.P.Kothari & Sons. The First and Second Defendants addressed letters to the film laboratories holding the negatives of the suit films, to transfer the nagatives to the name of M/s. S.P.Kothari & Sons. The said M/s. S.P.Kothari & Sons, vide two agreements dated 10.03.1998 and 14.04.1998, transferred the above rights to Mr. B.N.Vasanth except Film Nos.4 and 7. On 17.03.1998 the said Mr. B.N.Vasanth transferred the rights except Film Nos.4 and 7 to M/s. Lallu Films. On 20.12.2000 M/s. S.P.Kothari & Sons transferred the rights to broadcast the film Nos.4 and 7 to M/s. J.M.Enterprises. On 6.7.2004 M/s. J.M.Enterprises transferred their rights in respect of Film Nos.4 and 7 to M/s. Lallu Films. Thereafter, vide agreement dated 20.06.2007 M/s. Lallu Films transferred all rights to M/s. Sree Movies in respect of all suit films. On 14.07.2007 the said M/s. Sree Movies transferred their rights to the Third Defendant. The First Defendant has no right to make any further assignment. 5. Based on both the pleadings, following issues have been framed: 1. Thereafter, vide agreement dated 20.06.2007 M/s. Lallu Films transferred all rights to M/s. Sree Movies in respect of all suit films. On 14.07.2007 the said M/s. Sree Movies transferred their rights to the Third Defendant. The First Defendant has no right to make any further assignment. 5. Based on both the pleadings, following issues have been framed: 1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to get the relief of Permanent Injunction as sought for in the relief (a) in the Plaint? 2. Whether the defendants are jointly or severally liable to pay the damages for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest at 12% p.a. to the Plaintiff? 3. To what relief the Plaintiff ie entitled to? 6. On the side of the Plaintiff Mr. Adoor Padmakumar was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.P.1 to P.20 were marked as below:- S.No. Date Description of documents Exhibit 1 100398 Copy of agreement between M/s S.P.Kothari & Sons and Mr.B.N. Vasanth P-1 2 14.04.1998 Copy of agreement between M/s S.P.Kothari & Sons and Mr.B.N. Vasanth P-2 3 17.03.1998 Copy of agreement between Mr. B.N. Vasanth and M/s. Lallu Films P-3 4 050600 Copy of Deed of Assignment between Third and First Defendants P-4 5 27.03.2002 Copy of letter by First Defendant to Third Defendant. P-5 6 03-07-02 Copy of letter by First Defendant to Third Defendant. P-6 7 07-11-07 Copy of letter by First Defendant to Third Defendant. B.N. Vasanth and M/s. Lallu Films P-3 4 050600 Copy of Deed of Assignment between Third and First Defendants P-4 5 27.03.2002 Copy of letter by First Defendant to Third Defendant. P-5 6 03-07-02 Copy of letter by First Defendant to Third Defendant. P-6 7 07-11-07 Copy of letter by First Defendant to Third Defendant. P-7 8 25.03.2008 Agreement for suit films between 1st Defendant and Plaintiff P-8 9 02-07-08 Receipt given by 1st and 2nd Defendant to the Plaintiff P-9 10 01-07-08 Letter copy by Plaintiff to the Third Respondent P-10 11 17.07.2008 TV Page extract of Malayala Manorama Newspaper P-11 12 17.07.2008 Telegram true copy by Plaintiff to the Chairman of third defendant P-12 13 17.07.2008 Telegram true copy by Plaintiff to the Managing Director of third defendant P-13 14 23.07.2008 copy of Reply by the Third Defendant to Plaintiff P-14 15 06-08-08 Copy of letter by 1st and 2nd Defendants to the 3rd Defendant enclosing extract of Telegram to Plaintiff P-15 16 08-09-08 True Copy of Telegram sent by Plaintiff to 3rd Defendant P-16 17 09-09-08 Letter extracting text of telegram sent Plaintiff by 1st and 2nd Defendant P-17 18 15.09.2008 Copy of reply enclosing defaced lawyers notice dated 21.8.2008 P-18 19 04-10-08 Newspaper TV page Extract P-19 20 04-10-08 True copy of telegram sent by Plaintiff to 3rd Defendant P-20 7. On the side of the Defendants Mr. Venkitaraman was examined as D.W.1 and Exs.D.1 to D.31 were marked as under:- Exhibits produced on the side of the defendants: S.No. Date Description of documents Exhibit 1 18.06.1979 Copy of Agreement between M/s. S.P.Kothari & Sons and the Second Defendant D-1 2 18.06.1979 Copy of Agreement between M/s. S.P.Kothari & Sons and the First Defendant D-2 3 20.06.1979 Copy of letter from the Second Defendant to M/s. Vijaya Producations D-3 4 20.06.1979 Copy of letter from the second defendant to the M/s. Gemini Colour Laboratory D-4 5 20.06.1979 Copy of letter from the second defendant to the M/s. R.K.Film Laboratory, D-5 6 20.06.1979 Copy of letter from the second defendant to the M/s. Vijaya Productions Pvt. Ltd., D-6 7 10-03-98 Copy of agreement between M/s. S.P.Kothari & Sons and Mr. B.N.Vasanth D-7 8 14.04.1998 Copy of agreement between M/s. S.P.Kothari & Sons and Mr. B.N.Vasanth D-7 8 14.04.1998 Copy of agreement between M/s. S.P.Kothari & Sons and Mr. B.N.Vasanth D-8 9 10-03-98 Copy of letter by M/s. S.P.Kothari & Sons to M/s. Vijaya Colour Laboratory D-9 10 17.03.1998 Copy of Agreement between Mr.B.N. Vasanth and M/s. Lallu Films D-10 11 17-03-98 Copy of letter from Mr.B.N. Vasanth to M/s. Gemini Colour Laboratory D-11 12 17.03.1998 Copy of letter by Mr. B.N.Vasanth to M/s. Vijaya Colour Laboratory D-12 13 19.03.1998 Copy of letter by M/s. Gemini Colour Laboratory to Mr.A. Saleem D-13 14 21.03.1998 Copy of letter by M/s. Vijaya Colour Laboratory to Mr.A. Saleem D-14 15 14.04.1998 Copy of Letter from M/s.S.P.Kothari & Sons to M/s. R.K.Film Laboratory D-15 16 14.04.1998 Copy of Letter from Mr.B.N.Vasanth to M/s. R.K. Film Laboratory D-16 17 20.12.2000 Copy of Agreement between M/s. S.P. Kothari & Sons and M/s. J.M.Enterprises. D-17 18 06-07-04 Copy of agreement from M/s. J.M.Enterprises and M/s. Lallu Films D-18 19 12-06-07 Letter from M/s. Vijaya Colour Laboratory to M/s. Sree Movies D-19 20 20.06.2007 Agreement between M/s. Lallu Films and M/s. Sree Movies D-20 21 02-07-07 Letter from M/s. Vijaya Colour Laboratory to M/s. Sree Movies reg. Malayalam film "Adimakal" D-21 22 02-07-07 Letter from M/s. Vijaya Colour Laboratory to M/s. Sree Movies reg. Malayalam film "Vazhve Mayam" D-22 23 02-07-07 Letter from M/s. Vijaya Colour Laboratory to M/s. Sree Movies reg. Malayalam film "Aranazhika Neram" D-23 24 02-07-07 Letter from M/s. Vijaya Colour Laboratory to M/s. Sree Movies reg. Malayalam film "Yakshi" D-24 25 02-07-07 Letter from M/s. Vijaya Colour Laboratory to M/s. Sree Movies reg. Malayalam film "Katal Palam" D-25 26 14-07-07 Deed of Assignment of Copy Right between Third Defendant and M/s. Sree Movies D-26 27 16.07.2007 Letter from M/s. Gemini Colour Laboratory to M/s. Sree Movies D-27 28 27.06.2008 Copy of letter from M/s. Vijaya Colour Laboratory to M/s. National Film Archieve India, Pune D-28 29 06-08-08 Copy of letter from the First Defendant to the Third Defendant D-29 30 21.08.2008 Copy of Reply letter from the Third Defendant to First and Second Defendant. D-30 31 15.09.2008 Copy of Letter from the Third Defendant to the Plaintiff D-31 8. Learned counsel appearing for the Plaintiff submitted that First and Second Defendants are producers. They never transferred any satellite rights to M/s. Kothari & Sons in the year 1979. D-30 31 15.09.2008 Copy of Letter from the Third Defendant to the Plaintiff D-31 8. Learned counsel appearing for the Plaintiff submitted that First and Second Defendants are producers. They never transferred any satellite rights to M/s. Kothari & Sons in the year 1979. Satellite TV has been invented only later date, so on 25.3.2008 First and Second Defendants assigned the exclusive right in respect of the entire world satellite telecast of cable TV rights for a period of ten years in favour of the Plaintiff. Hence, once satellite TV has not assigned in the year 1979, any subsequent assignment in respect of the satellite TV to the Third Defendant is not valid, not binding on the Plaintiffs. Hence, his contention that the Plaintiff is entitled for reliefs. However, the learned counsel for the Plaintiff fairly submitted that the agreement dated 25.3.2008 for a period of ten years which came to an end by efflux of time. Therefore, the relief of injunction become infructuous. However, he is entitled for damages as prayed for, in view of the fact that the Defendants infringed the rights and telecasted the movies. Hence, prayed for damages. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the Third Defendant submitted that the Plaintiff has not proved the existing right over the satellite TV. The entire rights have been assigned by the producer in the year 1979 to one M/s. Kothari & Sons, thereafter, several assignments were taken place. Third Defendant has got assignment from one of the assignee. Therefore it is his contention that once the entire negative rights have already assigned, any scientific advancement the benefits will enure the assignee only, unless the right has retained by the owner. They cannot reassign any right. Further, it is his contention that absolutely there is no evidence to show that the Third Defendant has telecasted and gained income. P.W.1 himself admitted that he has claimed damages without any basis. Such being the position his contention is that the suit has to fail. 10. In the light of the above submissions the issue Nos.1 to 3 have to be decided Issues 1 to 3 11. It is not in dispute that the subject films are originally produced by the First and Second Defendants. Such being the position his contention is that the suit has to fail. 10. In the light of the above submissions the issue Nos.1 to 3 have to be decided Issues 1 to 3 11. It is not in dispute that the subject films are originally produced by the First and Second Defendants. The main contention of the Plaintiff is that by agreement dated 25.03.2008, the First and Second Defendants assigned to broadcast satellite or point to point broadcasting system through satellite. The Third Defendant is also claimed similar rights as previous agreement holder. The Plaintiff mainly relies on the agreement dated 25.3.2008, marked as Ex.P.8 which makes it clear that the satellite right has been assigned to the Plaintiff. This fact is not in dispute. It is also to be noted that the assignment is for a period of ten years from 25.3.2008 and the period has already come to an end by efflux of time. Therefore, as per the agreement now the Plaintiff cannot seek an injunction. The question of entitlement of whether or not satellite right acquired by the Plaintiff or the 3rd Defendant has become only an academic, as far as the relief of injunction is concerned, since the agreement already expired by efflux of time. 12. The Third Defendant entered into a deed of assignment dated 14.7.2007 from one Sree Movies for a period of five years including satellite right. This agreement was also come to an end by efflux of time. Therefore the Third Defendant is also cannot claim any right on the basis of the Deed of Assignment marked as Ex.B.26. The fact remains that originally the First and Second Defendants being the producers of the films have entered into an agreement dated 18.6.1979 with M/s. S.P.Kothari & Sons, which are marked as Ex.D1 and D2, in which they have assigned all India negative rights of the suit movies for a period of 99 years including the rights to hold the negatives and exclusive right of distribution exhibition and exploitation of the said pictures throughout India subject to the commitments already done by the Lessors. The said M/s. S.P.Kothari & sons has transferred the rights by Agreement dated 10.3.1998 and 14.4.1998 to one Mr.B.N.Vasanth and the said Mr.B.N.Vasanth vide agreement dated 17.3.1998 has transferred all India negative rights etc., in favour of one Lallu Films except Film Nos.4 and 7 to M/s.Lallu Films. The said M/s. S.P.Kothari & sons has transferred the rights by Agreement dated 10.3.1998 and 14.4.1998 to one Mr.B.N.Vasanth and the said Mr.B.N.Vasanth vide agreement dated 17.3.1998 has transferred all India negative rights etc., in favour of one Lallu Films except Film Nos.4 and 7 to M/s.Lallu Films. Similarly, on 20.12.2000 M/s. S.P.Kothari & Sons has also transferred satellite TV and broadcasting rights including VCD, DVD, Video etc., in respect of film Nos.4 and 7 to M/s. J.M.Enterprises. From M/s. Lallu Films, one Sree Movies got assignment in respect of all the suit films. Thereafter, Third Defendant has acquired the rights for five years. These are all admitted facts. 13. The fact remains that under Ex.D1 and D2 the Defendants by way of perpetual lease have transferred the all India negative rights and exclusive rights of distribution, exhibition and exploitation of the said pictures throughout India for a period of 99 years. Though the satellite Television has not come in to vogue at the relevant point of time the entire rights with regard to distribution, exhibition and exploitation of the said pictures throughout India has already been assigned. Therefore, this Court is of the view that any scientific advance due to the technology in the field of exhibition either by way of TV or Satellite TV, such benefits shall automatically enure only to the assignee as per Ex.B1 and B2 since in Exs.B.1 and B.2 entire rights towards negative and exclusive rights of exhibition and exploitation of the said pictures throughout India. In view of the scientific advancement and satellite TV invention such benefit automatically goes only to the assignee. No right whatsoever retained by the producer at the relevant point of time. Though entire rights for distribution, exhibition and exploitation of the said pictures throughout India has been given and assigned, any scientific advancement would necessarily enure to the assignee throughout India and not beyond India. Therefore, even satellite exhibition could be exploited only by the assignee or his successors only within India not beyond India. Such being the position any assignment in favour of the Plaintiff in respect of the satellite right of the films by the producer would not convey any rights to the Plaintiff. 14. Section 17 of the Copy Right Act deals with the First Owner of the Copy Right. Such being the position any assignment in favour of the Plaintiff in respect of the satellite right of the films by the producer would not convey any rights to the Plaintiff. 14. Section 17 of the Copy Right Act deals with the First Owner of the Copy Right. Section 17 of the Copy Right Act makes it clear that in the absence of any agreement to the contrary the Proprietor or author shall be the first owner of the copy right in the work. As for as cinematograph film made for valuable consideration, producer would be the first owner of the copy right in the absence of any agreement to the contrary. 15. Section 18 of the Act deals with the assignment of Copy Right. The amended provision inserted by Act 27 of 2012, came into effect on 21.6.2012. Proviso to Section 18 makes it clear that the assignment shall be applied to any medium or mode of exploitation of the work which did not exist or was not in commercial use at the time when the assignment was made, unless the assignment specifically referred to such medium or mode of exploitation of the work. The fact remains in this case is that the owner of the copy right while assigning the right in the year 1979 not referred to any medium or mode of exploitation of the work. Therefore, it cannot be said satellite television rights were retained by the producer. 16. At any event, assignment was restricted only throughout India. Such being the position, by way of such assignment one cannot take advantage to exhibit the film beyond the territory of India, since the very assignment itself only within the territory of India. 17. Be that as it may. The Plaintiff and Defendants are relying upon the documents of assignment. The rights already extinguished by efflux of time. Further the Plaintiff has not established the nature of damages sustained by them. No evidence whatsoever available on record. Moreover, the Plaintiff himself admitted in his cross examination, without any basis he claimed the damages. In the absence of any evidence, the Plaintiff cannot claim any damages. Accordingly the issues are answered. 18. In the result the suit is dismissed. However, considering the nature of the suit, no costs.