(Prayer: This Civil Suit is filed under Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 of CPC., read with Sections 55 and 62 of Copy Right Act, 1955 praying for a decree and Judgment in favour of the plaintiff granting the following reliefs:(a) for the relief of declaration declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute copy right owner in the suit pictures morefully described in the schedule hereunder having the rights of distribution, exhibition, exploitation rights, inclusive of commercial, non-commercial, theatrical, non-theatrical medias, world Television rights, world Video rights, world Satellite rights, Cable TV rights, DVD VCD, LD, Internet and web based technology rights DTU (Direct to User) and DTH (Direct to Home) rights, audio rights, broad casting rights in All India Radio and other stations and all other rights in whatsoever manner including the future scientific advancement and technological rights for the territories of entire world including India in respect of the suit pictures for a period of 99 years from 31.01.2001;(b) granting permanent injunction restraining the first and second defendant their agents, servants, each and every person or persons in any manner interfering with infringing the plaintiff-s copy right in the suit pictures morefully described in the schedule hereunder inclusive of commercial, non-commercial, theatrical, non-theatrical medias, world Television rights, world Video rights, world Satellite rights, Cable TV rights, DVD, VCD, LD, Internet and web based technology rights DTU (Direct to User) and DTH (Direct to Home) rights, audio rights, broad casting rights in All India Radio and other stations and all other rights in whatsoever manner including the future scientific advancement and technological rights in respect of the suit pictures; and(c) the costs of this suit.)1. The suit had been filed seeking a declaration that the plaintiff is the copy right owner of the movies “Rao Gopal Rao”, “Rendu Jadala Seetha”, “Jananee Janma Boomi” and “Merupu Daadi” with exploitation rights for commercial and non-commercial purposes for theatrical and non-theatrical medias, including Video rights, world Satellite rights, Cable TV rights, DVD and such other rights including web based technology rights and also broad casting rights in All India Radio and other stations and any other rights including the future scientific advancement and technological rights for the territories of entire world including India for a period of 99 years from 31.01.2001 and for a permanent injunction restraining the first and second defendants from infringing the rights of the plaintiff over the said movies and for costs of the suit.2. The plaintiff claimed that the third defendant G.Radhakrishna, Proprietor, Sree Brahmarambika Films at Bangalore was the producer of the Telugu movies “Rao Gopal Rao”, “Rendu Jadala Seetha”, “Jananee Janma Boomi” and “Merupu Daadi”. On 31.01.2001 by way of a written agreement, the third defendant had assigned their exclusive copy rights in the said movies in favour of the plaintiff for exploitation in all forms, including theatrical and non-theatrical medias, including Video rights, world Satellite rights, Cable TV rights, DVD and such other rights including web based technology rights and also broad casting rights in All India Radio and other stations and any other rights including the future scientific advancement and technological rights for the territories of entire world including India for a period of 99 years from 31.01.2001.3. The plaintiff had paid a total consideration of Rs.50,000/-. This has also been acknowledged by the third defendant by way of a receipt dated 07.02.2001. It was stated that the first and second defendant had illegally telecasted one of the movies, namely, “Rao Gopal Rao” and therefore, the plaintiff sent a telegram on 24.06.2008 through their lawyer. It was stated that since the plaintiff has the exclusive copy right over the said movies, the first and second defendants should be prevented from telecasting the same. It was under these circumstances that the suit had been filed.4. The suit had already been decreed against the first defendant by Judgment dated 18.02.2019 in view of an undertaking given by the first defendant that they would not telecast any of the movies mentioned. The second defendant had been set exparte on 18.02.2019 since service had been completed and notice served on 04.11.2008. This order had been again confirmed by order dated 13.09.2019. The suit had been dismissed by the learned Master for non-prosecution against the third defendant on 22.06.2010.5. The issues which arise for consideration are:(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration as prayed for?;(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?; and(iii) To what other reliefs is the plaintiff entitled to?6. The plaintiff was permitted to adduce evidence in so far as the second defendant was concerned. Accordingly, the witness for the plaintiff G.R.Raju filed his proof affidavit. Exs. P1 to P8 were marked. Ex.P1 is the original of the agreement dated 31.01.2001 between the plaintiff and the third defendant with respect to the four Telugu movies mentioned above; Exs. P3 & P4 are certified true copies of the telegram addressed to the first and second defendants dated 24.06.2008; Ex.P5 is the letter of Prasad Film Laboratories dated 30.01.2001 addressed to the plaintiff stating that they have received written instructions from the third defendant by letter dated 13.01.2001 and that accordingly they are transferring the negatives (both pictures and sound of the four movies) to the plaintiff. Ex.P8 is the receipt dated 07.02.2001 issued by the third defendant for receipt of total consideration pursuant to the agreement dated 31.01.2011 wherein they have stated that they have received Rs.20,000/- by cash on 31.01.2001, Rs.20,000/- by cash on 03.02.2001 and Rs.10,000/- by cash on 07.02.2001.7. Heard arguments advanced by Mr. PL. Narayanan, learned counsel for the plaintiff.Issue No. (i):8. The fact that the first plaintiff is the copy right holder of the four movies is established by Ex.P1 agreement dated 31.01.2001 entered into between the plaintiff and the third defendant, who is the producer of the said movies.9. Under Section 2(d)(v) of the Copy Rights Act, 1957, the “author” means in relation to a cinematograph film or sound recording the “producer”. Under Section 2(uu) “producer” in relation to a cinematograph film or sound recording, means a person who had taken the initiative and responsibility for making the work. Under Section 13, copy right shall subsist throughout India for any cinematograph film. Under Section 17, the “author” of the work shall be the “first owner” of the copy right. Under Section 18, the “owner” of the copyright may assign his rights to any party.10. A reading of all these provisions in conjunction would imply that the author of a work, namely, the producer of a cinematograph film is the first owner of the copy right of the said cinematograph film and has a right to assign the copyright to any party.11. In the instant case, the third defendant was the producer and the first owner of the copy right of the four Telugu movies mentioned above. A copy right owner can assign such copy right under Section 18 of the Act. In the present case, such assignment had been effected by Ex.P1. Accordingly, the plaintiff had become the copy right owner with respect to the four movies, “Rao Gopal Rao”, “Rendu Jadala Seetha”, “Jananee Janma Boomi” and “Merupu Daadi”.12. It is seen that the consideration towards the said agreement had been affirmed by the third defendant by their letter dated 07.02.2001, namely, Ex.P8. By Ex.P5, M/s. Prasad Film Laboratories had also transferred the negatives of the four movies to the plaintiff. Thus the right of the plaintiff cannot be assailed or questioned or even disputed by anybody. One of the four movies was telecasted by the first and second defendants. The first defendant, as stated, had given an undertaking that they would not telecast the movies and such undertaking had been recorded by the Court and a decree had been passed by Judgment dated 18.02.2019. The second defendant had been set exparte and had taken a conscious decision not to participate in the judicial proceedings.13. In view of the fact that the plaintiff had made out a case of ownership of copy right through lawfully executed documents for adequate consideration, I hold that the plaintiff is entitled for a declaration as against the second defendant as prayed for. Issue No. (i) is answered in favour of the plaintiff.Issue No. (ii):14. I further hold that the plaintiff in view of the answer to issue No.(i) is also entitled to a decree for permanent injunction as prayed for as against the second defendant. Issue No.(ii) is answered in favour of the plaintiff.Issue No.(iii):15. In the result, the suit is decreed as prayed for as against the second defendant with costs. In so far as the costs are concerned, in view of the fact that the second defendant has sh

own scant regard for the sanctity of the judicial proceedings by deliberately avoiding appearance, I hold that the plaintiff is entitled to costs as determined under the amended Section 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure as applicable to the Commercial Division of the High Court.16. Registry is delegated by the Court to determine the costs as per the Bill of Costs submitted by the plaintiff in accordance with Section 35 CPC as amended by the Commercial Courts Act 2015. The plaintiff is specifically entitled to the fees and expenses of the witnesses, the legal fees and expenses incurred and for any other expenses incurred in connection with the judicial proceedings and also for recovery of the actual Court fees paid into Court.17. To reiterate, the suit had already been decreed as against the first defendant by Judgment dated 18.02.2019 and dismissed as against the third defendant by order of the Master dated 22.06.2010.18. The suit is now decreed against the second defendant with costs as mentioned above.