JUDGMENT : (The suit is filed under Order IV Rule 1 of OS Rules, Order VII Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, read with Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957, (a) to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute legal owner of the copyrights in the Tamil cinematograph films titled ''Haridas''. ''Endrendrum Punnagai'' and ''Yarukku Yaaro''; (b) directing the defendants to pay damages of Rs.53,426/- (Rupees Fifty three thousand four hundred and twenty six only) for loss of revenue caused to the plaintiff as a result of the termination of his YouTube Channel titled ''New Tamil Movies'' for the period between 23.04.2018 and 26.04.2018; (c) directing the defendants to pay the plaintiff the entire revenue lost as a result of the termination of his YouTube Channel titled ''New Tamil Movies'' from the date of this suit till the date of decree along with interest: and (d) for the costs of the suit.) 1. The suit was filed seeking a declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the copyright in the Tamil cinematograph films titled ''Haridas'', ''Endrendrum Punnagai'', and ''Yarukku Yaaro''. In addition, the plaintiff prayed for damages of Rs.53,426/- (Rupees Fifty three thousand four hundred and twenty six only) for loss of revenue caused by the termination of his YouTube Channel between 23.04.2018 and 26.04.2018 and further damages on the same ground from the date of suit till the date of decree. 2. The first defendant filed a written statement along with counter claims for a permanent injunction restraining the plaintiff from infringing the first defendant's copyright in the cinematographic films ''Haridas'', ''Endrendrum Punnagai'' and ''Yarukku Yaaro'', rendition of accounts by the plaintiff, surrender of all infringing material and punitive damages of Rs.10,00,000/-. The second defendant adopted the written statement of the first defendant. While the fourth defendant filed a written statement, the third, sixth and seventh defendants forfeited their right to do so and the plaintiff elected not to prosecute the suit against the fifth defendant. 3. The plaintiff stated as follows. The plaintiff entered into assignment agreements in relation to the acquisition of rights in the Tamil movies ''Haridas'', ''Endrendrum Punnagai'' and ''Yarukku Yaaro'' on 04.09.2014, 17.12.2014 and 20.02.2014, respectively. On the basis of these assignment agreements, the plaintiff asserted that he is the absolute owner of the copyright in the said movies. 3. The plaintiff stated as follows. The plaintiff entered into assignment agreements in relation to the acquisition of rights in the Tamil movies ''Haridas'', ''Endrendrum Punnagai'' and ''Yarukku Yaaro'' on 04.09.2014, 17.12.2014 and 20.02.2014, respectively. On the basis of these assignment agreements, the plaintiff asserted that he is the absolute owner of the copyright in the said movies. As regards the Assignment Agreement dated 17.12.2014 in respect of ''Endrendrum Punnagai'', the plaintiff relied upon the assignment clause therein to contend that the assignment extends to video copyrights, cable rights and other communication rights. As regards the movie ''Yarukku Yaaro'', the plaintiff asserted that the assignment in his favour was from S. Balakrishnan who, in turn, was assigned the said rights by the producer of the movie, M/s.Universal Thavamani Cine Arts. As regards the movie ''Haridas'', the plaintiff referred to the relevant portion of the Agreement dated 04.09.2014 to state that the assignment extended to video rights, cable rights and other communication rights. 4. The plaintiff further stated that he was shocked to discover that the first defendant had issued a notice to take down or strike against the plaintiff's video of ''Yarukku Yaaro'', which was uploaded on YouTube on 14.04.2018. As a result, the said video was taken down by YouTube Similarly, on 19.09.2017, the second defendant, acting on behalf of the first defendant, issued a strike against the plaintiff's video of the movie ''Endrendrum Punnagai'', which was also uploaded on YouTube. Once again, YouTube took down the video. The plaintiff refers to a similar strike on 19.09.2017 which resulted in the video of the movie ''Haridas'' being taken down. Thereafter, the plaintiff stated that his YouTube Channel named “New Tamil Movies” was taken down and all the content uploaded thereon became inaccessible. Therefore, the plaintiff alleges that he was put to considerable revenue loss, and that he was constrained to file the suit. 5. The first defendant refuted the above statements through its written statement. The first defendant raised the preliminary objection that the suit is not maintainable before the Commercial Division since it does not qualify as a suit under Section 62 of the Copyright Act 1957(the Copyright Act). In this regard, the first defendant also asserted that the value of the suit is only Rs.58,426/- and, therefore, the suit is not of the Specified Value as defined in the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (the Commercial Courts Act). In this regard, the first defendant also asserted that the value of the suit is only Rs.58,426/- and, therefore, the suit is not of the Specified Value as defined in the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (the Commercial Courts Act). 6. With regard to the movie ''Endrendrum Punnagi'', the first defendant stated that it acquired exclusive copyright in the movie under an agreement dated 16.04.2012, which pre-dates the agreement dated 17.12.2014 under which the plaintiff claims copyright. The first defendant asserted that the agreement was executed by Dr. V. Ram Production Private Limited, which is the producer of the movie and the first owner of the copyright as disclosed in the certificate issued by the Central Board of Film Certification(CBFC). With regard to the movie ''Yarukku Yaaro'', the first defendant stated that it acquired exclusive rights in the movie under an agreement dated 30.07.2008, which was executed by M/s. Future Films, the owner of the copyright therein. The first defendant further stated that the title of M/s. Future Films is traceable through a series of assignments originating from the original owner of the copyright, M/s.Universal Thavamani Cine Arts. As regards the movie ''Haridas'', the first defendant stated that it acquired the exclusive copyright under an agreement dated 04.03.2013. This assignment was made by Dr. V. Ram Production Private Limited, the producer of the movie and the first owner of the copyright as disclosed in the certificate issued by the CBFC. 7. According to the first defendant, YouTube is a necessary party to the suit because the suit was triggered by YouTube's action of taking down the videos uploaded by the plaintiff. Therefore, the first defendant asserted that the suit is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of a necessary party. For reasons set out above, the first defendant made counter claims seeking to restrain the plaintiff from infringing its copyright in the movies ''Haridas'', ''Endrendrum Punnagai'' and ''Yarukku Yaaro'' and for other remedies in relation to such infringement. 8. The plaintiff filed a written statement in response to the counter claim. With regard to the movie ''Yarukku Yaaro'', the plaintiff stated that the first defendant had failed to establish that M/s. Future Films owned the copyright in the movie at the time of assignment to the first defendant. 8. The plaintiff filed a written statement in response to the counter claim. With regard to the movie ''Yarukku Yaaro'', the plaintiff stated that the first defendant had failed to establish that M/s. Future Films owned the copyright in the movie at the time of assignment to the first defendant. As regards the movie ''Endrendrum Punnagi'', the plaintiff stated that the certificate of the CBFC specifies the name of G.M. Tamil Kumaran as the producer, whereas the agreement dated 16.04.2012 in favour of the first defendant was executed by Dr. V. Ram Productions Private Limited. By contrast, the plaintiff stated that the assignment in his favour was by M/s.Tamil Kumaran Production Private Limited. Consequently, the plaintiff stated that the first defendant has no rights in the movie ''Endrendrum Punnagai''. With regard to the movie ''Haridas'', the plaintiff stated that the assignment in his favour was by the producer and therefore the first defendant has no right in the said movie. 9. The fourth defendant filed a written statement in which preliminary objections were raised with regard to the maintainability of the suit before the Commercial Division under the Commercial Courts Act. The fourth defendant stated that the said defendant should not have been joined as a party to the suit because there is no cause of action against him. The fourth defendant further stated that the plaintiff does not have specific video rights for uploading the video on YouTube. 10. Based on these pleadings, this Court framed the following issues : (i) Whether the assignors of copyright of the feature films ''Haridas'', ''Endrendrum Punnagai'' and ''Yarukku Yaaro'' in favour of the plaintiff had valid assignable right? (ii) Whether the rival claim of the first defendant in respect of the suit subject movies based on the assignment deed is prior in point of time and valid, if the answer is affirmative, whether such assignment is valid? (iii) Whether the defendant is entitled for restrain order against the plaintiff from exploiting the copyright over the third movie? (iv) Whether the assignment deeds relied by the plaintiff and the first defendant are in respect of copyrights which coexist or mutually exclusive? (v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration that he is the absolute owner of the copyright in the suit subject movies? (vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any damages? (iv) Whether the assignment deeds relied by the plaintiff and the first defendant are in respect of copyrights which coexist or mutually exclusive? (v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration that he is the absolute owner of the copyright in the suit subject movies? (vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any damages? (vii) Whether there is any infringement of the plaintiff's copyright by the defendants, if the answer is affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled for any cumulative damages? (viii) What other relief the parties are entitled? 11. The plaintiff was examined as P.W.1. In course of the examination in chief of P.W.1, eight documents were exhibited as Exs.P1 to P8. P.W.1 was cross examined by learned counsel for the first, second, third and fourth defendants. The first defendant adduced evidence by examining Mr. Akshay Mahadik as D.W.1. 12 documents were exhibited through D.W.1 as Exs.D1 to D12. D.W.1 was cross examined by learned counsel for the plaintiff and learned counsel for the third defendant. The second defendant examined Mr. Jerry Joseph as D.W.2. The Board Resolution dated 12.06.2016 was exhibited through D.W.2 as Ex.D13. He was cross examined by learned counsel for the plaintiff. 12. Oral arguments on behalf of the plaintiff were addressed by Mr. M.V. Swaroop, learned counsel; on behalf of the first and second defendants by Mr. Rajesh Ramanathan, learned counsel; on behalf of the third defendant by Mr. M. Narayanaswamy, learned counsel; and on behalf of the third defendant by Mr. K.K. Sivasshanmugam, learned counsel. 13. Learned counsel for the plaintiff stated that the producer of the movie ''Endrendrum Punnagai'' is Mr. G.M. Tamil Kumaran, as evidenced by Ex.P2. By referring to Ex.P5, he stated that the assignment in favour of the plaintiff was executed by Mr. G.M. Tamil Kumaran on behalf of Tamil Kumaran Production Private Limited. As regards the Film Assignment Agreement dated 16.04.2012(Ex.D2) under which the first defendant claims copyright, he stated that the lab letter was issued after the assignment of copyright in favour of the plaintiff. As regards the considerable variation in consideration as between Ex.P5 and Ex.D2, he submitted that such variation is because the plaintiff did not acquire satellite TV rights, which carry the highest value. As regards the considerable variation in consideration as between Ex.P5 and Ex.D2, he submitted that such variation is because the plaintiff did not acquire satellite TV rights, which carry the highest value. As regards the movie ''Haridas'', he referred to Ex.P1, which is the CBFC certificate, and pointed out that the name of the producer is mentioned therein as Dr. V. Ram Production Private Limited. As regards the movie ''Yarukku Yaaro'', learned counsel stated that the plaintiff is not prosecuting the suit claim with regard to the said movie and had filed a memo to such effect. However, he submitted that the first defendant's claim is on the basis of Ex.D4. Ex.D4 is an agreement between M/s Future Films and M/s.Zee News Limited. Because the said agreement is not with the first defendant, learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the first defendant failed to establish that it is the owner of the copyright in the movie. In this regard, learned counsel relied upon the answer to question 31 of D.W.1 and the answers to questions 2 to 4 of D.W.2. 14. In response to these submissions, Mr. Rajesh Ramanathan, learned counsel for the first and second defendants, stated that the plaintiff has prayed for a declaration and damages. He submitted that a suit for declaration is not within the scope of Section 62 of the Copyright Act and, therefore, is not required to be instituted in the district court having jurisdiction. The proviso to Section 7 of the Commercial Courts Act is, consequently, not attracted and, as a corollary, the suit is not maintainable before the Commercial Division. 15. On the merits, he stated that the plaintiff's agreement, as regards the movie ''Haridas'', is with Ram Pictures Private Limited and not with the producer, Dr. V. Ram Productions Private Limited. As regards the movie ''Endrendrum Punnagai'', he submitted that the assignment in favour of the first defendant (Ex.D3) is prior to Ex.P2 and expressly excludes the application of Section 19(4) of the Copyright Act. In order to substantiate this contention, he relied upon Clause 3.20 thereof. He also submitted that the scope of the assignment should be determined by reference to Ex.D2, which is the Assignment Agreement, and not by reference to the lab letter (Ex.D3). As regards the movie ''Yarukku Yaaro'', he stated that the plaintiff admitted Ex.D4 in its affidavit of admission/denial. In order to substantiate this contention, he relied upon Clause 3.20 thereof. He also submitted that the scope of the assignment should be determined by reference to Ex.D2, which is the Assignment Agreement, and not by reference to the lab letter (Ex.D3). As regards the movie ''Yarukku Yaaro'', he stated that the plaintiff admitted Ex.D4 in its affidavit of admission/denial. Therefore, it is not open to the plaintiff to assert that the first defendant is not the owner of the copyright in the movie ''Yarukku Yaaro''. He also referred to the cross examination of P.W.1 and, in particular, the answers to questions 10,13,17,18,30 to 38 and 47 to 53. By referring to Ex.P8, he contended that the cause of action for the suit was the action taken by YouTube and therefore the suit is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of YouTube. Since the first defendant established that it is the owner of the copyright in respect of all the movies referred to above, he submitted that the first defendant is entitled to its counter claim. 16. Learned counsel for the fourth defendant admitted that the said defendant executed Ex.P5 but contended that the intention was to provide limited rights in respect of video cassettes, VCDs and DVDs. His next submission was that the suit is not maintainable because the reliefs claimed are outside the scope of Chapter XII of the Copyright Act. By referring to the cross examination of P.W.1 by the fourth defendant and, in particular, the answers to questions 17 to 21, he pointed out that the plaintiff admitted that no loss was incurred. 17. By way of rejoinder, learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that copyright confers the exclusive right to exhibit the work. Therefore, the suit is for relief in respect of infringement and falls within the scope of Section 62 of the Copyright Act. As regards non-joinder of YouTube, he submitted that no relief is claimed against YouTube and, therefore, YouTube is not a necessary party. 18. Although no issue was framed with regard to the maintainability of the suit, the parties made submissions to the effect that the suit does not qualify as a suit under Chapter XII of the Copyright Act. Since this is a preliminary issue, this is addressed first. 18. Although no issue was framed with regard to the maintainability of the suit, the parties made submissions to the effect that the suit does not qualify as a suit under Chapter XII of the Copyright Act. Since this is a preliminary issue, this is addressed first. Sub Section 1 of Section 62 reads as under : ''(1) Every suit or other civil proceeding arising under this chapter in respect of the infringement of copyright in any work or the infringement of any other right conferred by this Act shall be instituted in the District Court having jurisdiction.'' Thus, on a plain reading, sub-section 1 applies to suits or other civil proceedings under Chapter XII either in respect of the infringement of copyright in any work or the infringement of any other right conferred by the Copyright Act. On examining the plaint, it is abundantly clear that the plaintiff asserts ownership of copyright in respect of the three movies in question. On the basis that he is the owner of the copyright, the plaintiff has prayed for a declaration and damages. The claim for damages is undoubtedly on the basis that the plaintiff's copyright has been infringed by the defendants. Under Section 55 of the Copyright Act, the owner of the copyright in any work is entitled to all such remedies by way of injunction, damages, accounts and otherwise as are or may be conferred by law for the infringement of a right. The claim for damages falls squarely within the scope of sub-section 1 of Section 55. The defendants contended that the suit is not within the scope of Section 62 because declaratory relief is prayed for. I do not agree. If the plaintiff had only prayed for declaratory relief, the defendants may have been justified in asserting that it is not a suit for infringement of copyright. In light of the claim for damages for infringement, it cannot be said that this is not a suit for infringement of copyright. Once the suit qualifies as a suit for infringement of copyright, the suit may only be instituted before the District Court having jurisdiction. Consequently, by virtue of the proviso to Section 7 of the Commercial Courts Act, such suit would lie before the Commercial Division notwithstanding the value of the suit. Once the suit qualifies as a suit for infringement of copyright, the suit may only be instituted before the District Court having jurisdiction. Consequently, by virtue of the proviso to Section 7 of the Commercial Courts Act, such suit would lie before the Commercial Division notwithstanding the value of the suit. The reason for such conclusion is that the proviso to Section 7 carves out an exception to the principal clause which imposes the Specified Value requirement by omitting the same from the proviso thereto. The preliminary objection that YouTube is a necessary party warrants a brief discussion. As correctly contended by learned counsel for the plaintiff, no relief is claimed against YouTube and an effective decree may be issued in the absence of YouTube. Therefore, YouTube is not a necessary party. The merits of the dispute are addressed next. Issue No.1 to 7 19. Issue Nos.1, 5, 6 and 7 relate to the assignment of copyright in the three movies in favour of the plaintiff and whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaratory relief and damages as prayed for. Issue Nos. 2 and 3 relate to the rights of the first defendant. Issue No.4 relates to whether the rights of the parties co-exist or are mutually exclusive. Unless the assignment agreements in favour of the first Defendant are examined, the validity of rights claimed by the Plaintiff cannot be determined. Because all these issues are inter-related, they are dealt with jointly. 20. As regards the movie ''Haridas'', the plaintiff asserts title on the basis of Ex.P4. Ex.P4 is an agreement dated 04.09.2014 between Ram Pictures Private Limited and the plaintiff. On the contrary, the first defendant relies upon Ex.D6 which is the Film Assignment Agreement dated 04.03.2013 between Dr. V. Ram Productions Private Limited and the first defendant. Without doubt, Ex.D6 is prior to Ex.P4. Secondly, the certificate issued by the CBFC in respect of the movie ''Haridas'' discloses that the producer is Dr. V. Ram Productions Private Limited and not Ram Pictures Private Limited. Thus, the prior assignment in favour of the first defendant is from the producer of the movie, who is the first owner of the copyright therein. The only aspect that remains to be considered is the scope of assignment. As per Ex.D6, assigned rights are defined in Schedule-1. V. Ram Productions Private Limited and not Ram Pictures Private Limited. Thus, the prior assignment in favour of the first defendant is from the producer of the movie, who is the first owner of the copyright therein. The only aspect that remains to be considered is the scope of assignment. As per Ex.D6, assigned rights are defined in Schedule-1. As per Schedule-1, satellite broadcasting rights in India, terrestrial rights, cable, pay per view, Pay T.V., broadband, internet and other rights were assigned. As regards overseas satellite rights, non-exclusive rights were assigned. Each of these categories has been elaborated further under Schedule-3 of Ex.D6. For instance, the 9th entry thereto pertains to video copyrights, the 10th entry pertains to DVD copyrights and the 12th entry pertains to internet rights. Turning to Ex.P4, the assignment is in respect of video copyrights. Video copyrights is defined to include video on demand, video through internet, pay for view, VCD, HD, DVD, etc. On comparison between Ex.D6 and Ex.P4, the rights are clearly overlapping. Since the assignment under Ex.D6 pre-dates the assignment under Ex.P4, the assignment under Ex.P4 is not valid. 21. With regard to the movie ''Endrendrum Punnagai'', the plaintiff claims copyright under Ex.P5. Ex.P5 is an agreement dated 17.12.2014 between M/s.Tamil Kumaran Production Private Limited, represented by its proprietor, Mr. G.K.M. Tamil Kumaran, and the plaintiff. The CBFC certificate, which is exhibited as Ex.P2, specifies the name of the applicant as Dr. V. Ram Productions Private Limited and the name of the producer as Mr. G.M. Tamil Kumaran. The first defendant, on the other hand, claims title under Ex.D2, which is the Film Assignment Agreement dated 16.04.2012. The Film Assignment Agreement dated 16.04.2012 was executed by Dr. V. Ram Productions Private Limited, represented by its Directors and authorized signatories, Mr. G.M. Tamil Kumaran and Mrs. S. Manjula. Once again, the assignment agreement (Ex.D2) in favour of the first defendant is prior in point of time. However, the assignor under the said agreement is a limited company and not the producer as per the CBFC certificate. The agreement on which the plaintiff relies is also not without flaws. The said agreement discloses that it is executed by a limited company, namely, Tamil Kumaran Production Private Limited. A limited company is required by law to be managed by a Board of Directors and not by a proprietor, whereas it is signed by Mr. The agreement on which the plaintiff relies is also not without flaws. The said agreement discloses that it is executed by a limited company, namely, Tamil Kumaran Production Private Limited. A limited company is required by law to be managed by a Board of Directors and not by a proprietor, whereas it is signed by Mr. G.K.M. Tamilkumaran as proprietor. Therefore, neither the agreement in favour of the plaintiff nor the agreement in favour of the first defendant is free from discrepancy. Both documents have been executed by Mr. G.M. Tamil Kumaran, who is the fourth defendant in the suit, albeit on behalf of different limited companies. He does not deny executing both these documents. Therefore, the scope of both these assignments should be subject to examination. Under Ex.D2, the expression assigned rights is defined in the schedule thereto, Schedule-1 confers exclusive rights on the assignee as regards satellite broadcasting rights in India, DTH, broadband, internet and non-exclusive overseas satellite rights. Schedule -3 thereof sets out the scope of each category of exclusive rights. Under serial no.9, 10 and 12 thereof, respectively, video copyrights, DVD copyrights and Internet rights are covered. Ex.P5 deals with an assignment of exclusive video copyrights and video copyrights are defined as video on demand, internet rights, VCD, DVD rights, etc. When the scope of Ex.D2 is compared with Ex.P5, there is no doubt that the rights assigned under Ex.D2 overlap the rights assigned under Ex.P5. Both assignments contain discrepancies with regard to the description of the assignor but Ex.D2 is prior in point of time. Both assignments were admittedly executed by Mr. Tamil Kumaran, albeit on behalf of different entities, and the rights are overlapping. On considering all these factors, it is concluded that Ex.P5 is not valid. 22. As regards the movie ''Yarukku Yaaro'', the plaintiff conceded that he does not have the copyright in the movie and filed a memo to that effect. Based on the memo, by order dated 07.09.2020, the suit was dismissed so far as the movie ''Yarukku Yaaro'' was concerned. By way of counter claim, the first defendant asserted that it owns the copyright by relying upon Ex.D4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff pointed out that Ex.D4 is between M/s.Future Films and Zee News Limited and not in favour of the first defendant. By way of counter claim, the first defendant asserted that it owns the copyright by relying upon Ex.D4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff pointed out that Ex.D4 is between M/s.Future Films and Zee News Limited and not in favour of the first defendant. Learned counsel for the first defendant dealt with this submission by pointing out that the plaintiff did not deny Ex.D4 in his statement of admission/denial. The non-denial of Ex.D4 merely means that the plaintiff is not disputing the execution of an agreement by M/s.Future Films in favour of M/s.Zee News Limited. It cannot be inferred from such admission that the plaintiff is admitting that the assignment was in favour of Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited, which is a separate legal entity. Although it is likely that Zee News Limited and the first defendant are group companies, in the absence of evidence of devolution of title to the first defendant, the contention of learned counsel for the plaintiff that the first defendant has failed to establish the devolution of title in favour of the first defendant is liable to be accepted. 23. Thus, it is concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish that he is the owner of the copyright in any of the three movies, which formed the subject of the suit. On the contrary, the first defendant has established ownership of copyright as regards the movies ''Haridas'' and ''Endrendrum Punnagai''. The first defendant, however, failed to establish ownership of copyright as regards the movie ''Yarukku Yaaro''. As a consequence of these findings, the plaintiff is not entitled either to a declaration that he is the owner of the copyright or to damages, which are consequential to declaratory relief. As regards the first defendant, the said defendant is entitled to injunctive relief to restrain the plaintiff from infringing its copyright in the movie ''Haridas'' and ''Endrendrum Punnagai''. The first defendant is also entitled to an order for delivery of infringing material for destruction and rendition of account of profits with regard to the movies ''Haridas'' and ''Endrendrum Punnagai''. As regards the claim for damages, the first defendant has not adduced evidence of loss. Therefore, the first defendant is not entitled to damages. Since the first defendant succeeded substantially, the first defendant is entitled to proportionate costs. As regards the claim for damages, the first defendant has not adduced evidence of loss. Therefore, the first defendant is not entitled to damages. Since the first defendant succeeded substantially, the first defendant is entitled to proportionate costs. The plaintiff is directed to pay a sum of Rs.2 lakhs as costs to the first defendant towards court fees, lawyer's fees and other expenses. 24. In the result, the suit claim of the plaintiff is dismissed and the counter claim filed by the first defendant is decreed in terms of prayers (a) to (c) thereof but only in respect of the movies "Haridas" and "Endrendum Punnagai". In addition, the plaintiff is directed to pay the first defendant a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as costs towards court fees, lawyer's fees and expenses.