Assignment Deed Concerning Rights In Cinematograph Film Requires Attestation When There Is Cloud Over Due Execution Of Document: Madras HC

While observing that the Plaintiff failed to prove due execution of the assignment deeds by leading acceptable evidence, the Madras High Court dismissed a suit seeking a declaration that Plaintiff was the sole and absolute owner of all the intellectual property rights in respect of dubbed cinematograph film 'Chingari' and 'Shrikanta' in Tamil and Malayalam.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice S. Sounthar observed that “assignment deed concerning rights in a cinematograph film is not a document which requires compulsory attestation. Notwithstanding the same, when there is a cloud over the due execution of the document, attestors evidence assumes significance”.

Advocate M.V. Swaroop appeared for the Petitioner, whereas Advocate B. Arvind Srevatsa appeared for the Respondent.

Going by the background of the case, the Plaintiff had filed a suit seeking declaration that he is the sole and absolute owner of all the intellectual property rights in respect of dubbed cinematograph film 'Chingari' and 'Shrikanta'. He also sought for a direction to the defendants to remove the infringing content of the copyrights protected film in Tamil and Malayalam while also seeking damages of Rs 1,20,000 from the defendants. According to the plaintiff, the second defendant is the producer of the Kannada cinematograph film 'Chingari' and he acquired dubbing rights in Tamil and Malayalam languages along with internet and non-theatrical rights of the said film and another film not connected with the suit 'Shishira' vide an Assignment Deed. The plaintiff claimed that the consideration had been paid to the defendants through one Rajendra Kumar, who brokered the deal. Later, the Plaintiff alleged that the third defendant had assigned exclusive dubbing rights of the films 'Chingari' and 'Shrikanta' in other South Indian Languages in favour of the first defendant. Accordingly, a legal notice was issued by the plaintiff to the defendants.

After considering the submission, the High Court found that the contesting first defendant pleaded collusion between the plaintiff and the defendants and in view of the stand taken by the first defendant, a cloud was created over due execution of assignment deed.

Therefore, the High Court observed that it was incumbent on the plaintiff to cure the cloud by proving due execution of the assignment deed.

The Bench elucidated that the witness column in the assignment deeds were blank and therefore, there was no attestor to examine, and further there was a material contradiction regarding the presence of plaintiff at the time of execution of assignment deeds.

Thus the Bench stated that the plaintiff sought declaration of its dubbing rights over the films in question under Assignment Deeds, however, he failed to produce the original assignment deeds but produced only the photocopies.

The High Court also observed that when the very execution of assignment deeds were not proved, the plaintiff could not take advantage of the precedent that mere non-payment of consideration would not vitiate the assignment because even a promise to pay consideration can be treated as a sufficient consideration.

Accordingly, the High Court concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove due execution of deeds by leading acceptable evidence, and hence, dismissed the suit.

Cause Title: C. Prakash v. S. N. Media and Ors.

Click here to read / download Judgment