A. Raja vs V. Muthulakshmi and Others

B. Veerappa, J.—This is a plaintiffs 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.

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 1st 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 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.

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 (1st 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 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 1st 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 6th defendant who was a known film movie maker in Mumbai. Therefore the plaintiff sought for information from the 1st defendant whether she has assigned rights in favour of defendant Nos. 2, 3, 4 along with GR films -the 5th defendant to produce and release the movie under the name and style "Killing Veerappan" by letter dated 14.10.2015. The 1st 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.

It was further contended that the plaintiff came to know that the 6th 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 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.

The 1st 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 1st 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.

The 4th defendant has filed written statement, denied the entire plaint averments and contended that the 4th 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 4th 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 4th defendant further contended that the right to such information is vital in a democratic set up. Artists, film makers and 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 4th 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 1st 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.

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" pending disposal of the suit. The said application was resisted by the 4th defendant by filing the objections, reiterating the averments made in the written statement by him.

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. Balance of convenience is not in favour of the plaintiff. Against the said order, the present Misc. First Appeal is filed.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to lis.

Sri. Srivatsa, learned Senior counsel for Sri. Vardhaman V. Gunjal appearing for the appellant strenuously contended that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is without any basis. No documents were produced by the defendants to show that the film is made based on public documents. It is further contended that the Trial court has recorded wrong finding that the defendants have spent huge amount which has no basis. Learned Senior counsel further contended that in the absence of any material produced by the defendants to make film based on the public records, the very impugned order passed by the Trial Court cannot be sustained, on these grounds he sought to set aside the impugned order passed by the Trial Court.

Sri. Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for Sri. H.S. Dwarakanath learned counsel appearing for the 4th defendant sought to justify the impugned order and contended that the plaintiff has come to the court seeking equitable relief of permanent injunction, he has to establish independently and he cannot succeed on the weakness of the defendants. He further contended that the plaintiff has not proved prima-facie case to grant equitable order of Temporary injunction. Therefore he sought to dismiss the appeal.

I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record carefully.

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties, only point that arise for consideration is:

"Whether the Trial court is justified in dismissing the application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure"

It is not in dispute that the plaintiff filed the suit mainly on the basis of the agreement dated 18.05.2006 said to have executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff to produce the film. The agreement clearly depicts that agreement dated 18.05.2006 is valid for a period of three years since making the movie and TV serials will take minimum three years, 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 the same is accepted by the 2nd party to the agreement.

Admittedly, the suit filed by the plaintiff on 07.11.2015 for the relief of permanent injunction. It is also not in dispute that the plaintiff has not filed any suit for specific performance to enforce the agreement dated 18.05.2006 till today. According to the plaintiff, cause of action arose to the plaintiff in the month of September 2015, when he came to known that the defendants are releasing the film "KILLING VEERAPPAN".

It is relevant to state at the stage that in para-9 of the plaint, the plaintiff has categorically stated that the 1st teaser of ''Killing Veerappan'' was released on 12th July 2015. The full length of trailer was released on 18th October 2015 which achieved highly positive reviews. The film was set to release theatrically during the festival of Deepavali 2015. The relevant para-9 of the plaint is reproduced herewith for ready reference:--

"9. The plaintiff has found on the internet website that the Defendants 1 to 5 have promoted the movie Killing Veerappan as an upcoming Indian, docudrama thriller film written and directed by Ram Gopal Varma, based on the events leading to Operation Cocoon to capture or kill Indian bandit Veerappan. The film is being shot primarily in the Kannada language, and being simultaneously dubbed into Telugu, Hindi and Tamil languages, featuring Shivaraj Kumar in the central role of Senthamarai Kannan, the Superintendent of Police, with the Indian Special Task Force, and the spy who masterminded Operation Cocoon. The first teaser of Killing Veerappan was released on 12th July 2015. The full length trailer was released on 18th October 2015, which achieved highly positive reviews. The film is set to release theatrically during the festival of Deepavali 2015. The Cast includes Shivaraj Kumar as Senthamarai Kannan, SP and mastermind of ''Operation Cocoon, Sandeep Bharadwaj as Veerappan, the forest brigand, Yagna Shetty as Muthulakshmi, Veerappan''s wife, Vijay Kumar, Chief of Tamil Nadu STF, Gadda Viji as Pandillapalli Srinivas, IFS Officer who was killed by Veerappan, Sanchari Vijay, Rajesh, Parul Yadav, Rockline Venkatesh as Harikrishna, SP of Kolar, who was killed by Veerappan. The production of the movie Killing Veerappan is produced by B.V. Manjunath, B.S. Sudhindra, E. Shivaprakash, and Raghuacahar along with Ram Gopal Varma under the production house of ZED3 Pictures and G.R. Pictures, the Defendant 5 and 6 and Defendant 2, 3 and 4. The Music is composed by Sai Karthik and Ravi Shankar and the Background score is done by Seshu KMR. This film costumes were designed by Shravya Varma."

It is also not in dispute that before filing the suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff approached the 7th defendant which is a regulatory body in so far as dispute between the production and exhibition of films at para-12, which reads as under:

"Para 12:-- The 7th Defendant is a regulatory body in so far as it relates to the production, distribution and exhibition of films by its members in the territory of Karnataka. It is said to be affiliated to South Indian Film Chamber of Commerce and Film Federation of India which are the highest bodies regulating production and exhibition of films. KFCC is it is submitted that as an association and attends to the complaints and resolve the disputes and it is in connection Plaintiff caused the notice dated 1.11.2015 with the complaint requesting to resolve the dispute."

According to the plaintiff, he entered into an agreement on 18.5.2006 with the 1st defendant. But the first defendant has filed a written statement on 25.11.2015, unfortunately denied the entire plaint averments and specifically contended that the 1st defendant has not executed alleged agreement on 18.5.2006 in favour of the plaintiff and said agreement is not a valid and enforceable agreement and it is created for the purpose of filing the suit. It is also not in dispute that the plaintiff came to know that the 1st teaser of "Killing Veerappan" was released on 12.07.2015, the full length trailer was released on 18.10.2015 and the film is set to release theatrically during the festival of Deepavali 2015. Admittedly suit filed on 07.11.2015. As on the date of filing of the suit 07.11.2015, the agreement was not in force. Therefore the plaintiff has no legal right to file the suit for injunction against the defendants. In the absence of prima facie case, the plaintiff is not entitled for equitable order of Temporary injunction. Accordingly the point raised by this court has to be answered in the affirmative, holding that the trial is justified in dismissing the application for temporary injunction.

The trial Court considering the entire pleadings, material on record, exercised discretionary power and dismissed the application filed for temporary injunction holding that plaintiff has not made out prima facie case. Balance of convenience is not in favour of plaintiff, but it is in favour of defendant Nos. 2 to 6. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of temporary injunction as sought for in I.A. No. 1. The same is in accordance with law. Such discretionary order of refusing for grant of temporary injunction cannot be interfered with by this Court while exercising the appellate jurisdiction under the provisions of order 43 Rule 1(r) Code of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff has failed to establish his case independently. He cannot succeed based on the alleged weakness of the defendants. The allegations and counter-allegations with regard to agreement, public documents relied upon by the parties has to be adjudicated by Trial Court after full fledged trial between the parties to the lis.

In view of the aforesaid reasons the appellant has not made out any ground to interfere with impugned order passed by the Trial Court. Accordingly the MFA is dismissed.

However, any observations made by this Court while deciding this appeal arising out of interlocutory order dismissing, the application for temporary injunction may not be influenced by the Trial Court while deciding the matter on merits in accordance with law.

Ordered accordingly.