• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29 th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2015 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA M.F.A.No.9205/2015 (CPC) BETWEEN: MR. A. RAJA, S/O. K. AMMAIYAPPANN, OPP. TO GOVT. ENGINEERING COLLEGE FIRST ENTRANCE, SAMINAYAKANAPATI, KATTUVALVU, OMALUR TALUK SALEM-636011. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. SRIVATSA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR VARDHAMAN V. GUNJAL) AND: 1. MRS. V. MUTHULAKSHMI, W/O. KOOSE MUNISWAMY VEERAPPAN, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, AKA SANDALWOOD VEERAPPAN, R/AT NO.171/9, POTTANERI 4 ROAD, KULLAMUDAIYANOOR POST 636401, METTUR TALUK, SALEM DISTRICT, 2. MR. B.V. MANJUNATH, FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOWN, AGE MAJOR, EXACT AGE NOT KNOWN. 3. MR. B.S. SUTHINTRA, FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOWN, AGE MAJOR, EXACT AGE NOT KNOWN. 2 4. MR. E. SIVAPRAKASH, FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOWN, AGE MAJOR, EXACT AGE NOT KNOWN. G R FILMS DEft NOS.2, 3 & 4, AT, NO.17/1, AMBALIPURA, BELLANTHUR, SARJAPURA, OUTER RING ROAD, BANGALORE-560 102. 5. MR. RAGHU AACHAR S/O. GOVINDACHARI, AGED ABOUT 35 TEARS, CHAIRMAN, G R FILMS, R/A, NO.17/1, AMBALIPURA, BELLANTHUR, SARJAPURA, OUTER RING ROAD, BANGALORE-560 102. DEFENDANT NOS.3 TO 5 IN CHARGE BUSINESS AT G.R. PRODUCTIONS. 6. MR. RAM GOPAL VARMA, FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOWN, AGE ABOUT 55 YEARS, FILM DIRECTOR, GROUND FLOOR, SILVER ARCH, B 8, ANDHERI WEST, OPP. MILAN NAGAR GATE, OSHIWARA, MUMBAI – 400053. 7. KARNATAKA FILM CHAMBER AND COMMERCE, NO.28, 1 ST MAIN ROAD, NEAR SIVANANDA CIRCLE, CRESENT ROAD, HIGH GROUNDS, SHESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE-560 001. BY ITS PRESIDENT. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADV. FOR SRI. H.S. DWARAKANATH FOR C/R-4) 3 MFA FILED U/S 43 RULE (1) (r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.12.2015, PASSED ON I.A. NO.1 IN O.S. NO.9231/2015 ON THE FILE OF LIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE I.A. NO.1 FILED U/O. 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SEC. 151 OF CPC. THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, B. VEERAPPA. J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- J U D G M E N T This is a plaintiff’s Misc. First Appeal against the Order dated 07.12.2015 on I.A. No.1 made in O.S. No.9231/2015 on the file of the LIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-60) dismissing the application for Temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction against the defendants mainly on the basis of the alleged agreement dated 18.05.2006 contending that the 1 st defendant Smt. V. Muthulakshmi executed an agreement in favour of the plaintiff and the suit is a breach of confidence action. The plaintiff is the sole 4 agreement holder to shoot and produce the incidents and antecedents which occurred in the life of Veerappan – Koose Muniswamy Veerappan popularly known as “Veerappan” who was said to be involved in Forest Offences and was a Bandit poacher dit, poacher and smuggler who carried out his activities in the forest of the Southern States Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu. He was involved in killing about more than 120 people and poached over 2000 elephants and smuggled sandalwood and ivory, he gained notoriety all over India and evaded arrest for nearly about 20 years. 3. It was further contended that after the death of Veerappan, the plaintiff who is involved in carrying of the business of production, direction, action in films and film industry for nearly three decades approached the wife (1 st defendant) of deceased Veerappan and entered into an agreement with her on 18.05.2006 and secured the exclusive license to produce any movie and/ or TV serial on the life of the said Veerappan. It 5 was agreed between the parties that before screening the movie or the TV serial, she should be shown the movie or the TV serial. The plaintiff secured rights to produce and screen the movie and TV serial in the languages of Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam and Kannada. The plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs to the 1 st defendant on 18.05.2006 while entering the agreement and the said agreement was initially valid for three years and if there is any delay the plaintiff has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs for every three years for a period of up to 15 years and on each occasion of renewal has endorsed and affixed her signature on the said agreement and the said agreement is currently in force. The plaintiff further contended that during the month of September 2015, the plaintiff heard that the defendants 2, 3, 4 and 5 have been producing movie under the title “Killing Veerappan” on the life of Veerappan and the same was being directed by the 6 th defendant who was a known film movie maker in Mumbai. Therefore the plaintiff sought for information 6 from the 1 st defendant whether she has assigned rights in favour of defendant Nos.2, 3, 4 along with GR films – the 5 th defendant to produce and release the movie under the name and style “Killing Veerappan” by letter dated 14.10.2015. The 1 st defendant responded on 18.10.2015 that she has not executed any Agreement or has given rights to shoot the incidents and antecedents’ which occurred in the life of her husband Veerappan and categorically stated that if anybody produces film in Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam and Kannada or translation version it would be against law and further would be contrary to the agreement with plaintiff and she offered to give her full co-operation in seeking legal remedies. 4. It was further contended that the plaintiff came to know that the 6 th defendant had secured an authorization to make the movie on the life of Veerappan in Hindi language and dubbing in Tamil only. Plaintiff also caused a notice on 01.11.2015 not to release the movie “Killing Veerappan. Prior to that the 7 plaintiff contacted defendant Nos.3, 4 and 5 came to Chennai and invited the Plaintiff to Crown Plaza Hotel, TTK Road Chennai. Plaintiff showed them the Agreement dated 18.05.2006. The defendants categorically informed the plaintiff that they would not proceed in the matter of producing and releasing the movie of the life story of Veerappan and resolve the issue amicably etc., Therefore, he filed the suit for the relief sought for. 5. The 1 st defendant has filed the written statement denying the plaint averments and contended that the suit is false, frivolous, vexatious and has been filed with a malafide intension to make a wrongful gain at the cost of the 1 st defendant and the plaintiff is liable to pay compensatory cost of Rs.1,00,000/- and specifically denied that the alleged agreement dated 18.05.2006 is not a valid and enforceable agreement etc., prays the dismissal of the suit. 8 6. The 4 th defendant has filed written statement, denied the entire plaint averments and contended that the 4 th defendant is entitled to tell the story of Veerappan which has been in existence who is known to everybody in India and which has been published widely, repeatedly from several years. In fact, there was a Commission called as Justice Sadashiva Commission which made enquiries about the atrocities stated to have been committed by the Police while hunting the said Veerappan and from that report many aspects are in the open and known to all. In Nakeeran Publication, the whole story of Veerappan has been clearly published. Further when Veerappan was alive he himself had not objected for publications. By the picture produced by the 4 th defendant, an attempt is made to place before the public on account of what has passed to history and for the purpose of picturization several fictitious characters are also included. The 4 th defendant further contended that the right to such information is vital in a democratic set up. Artists, film makers and 9 play writers are affirmatively entitled to allude the incidents which have taken place and to present the version in their own way. How a film maker produces a film is his choice subject only to the restriction that sensor board has to clear it. The specific case of the 4 th defendant is that the film produced by him is based on public records which incidents have not been denied by Veerappan himself during his life time and it is not the case of the plaintiff that any of his rights are affected except based on the agreement. The agreement has no value for the reason that the 1 st defendant did not had exclusive right regarding production of a film regarding Veerappan. The law gives a right to make and exhibit a film on a life of a person who is no more. Therefore, he sought for dismissal of the suit. 7. The plaintiff also filed I.A. No.I under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure for temporary injunction restraining the defendants from releasing the movie “Killing Veerappan” 10 pending disposal of the suit. The said application was resisted by the 4 th defendant by filing the objections, reiterating the averments made in the written statement by him. 8. The Trial Court after consideration of the entire material on record, has passed the impugned Order dismissing the application for temporary injunction holding that the plaintiff failed to prove the prima facie case.

Load more

  19

Copy Link