Cause of Action: Right to sue – Accrual of, when – On facts, plaintiffs assigned telecasting right of 16 schedule films by assignment deeds dated 23.12.1994 for a period of 9 years in favour of defendant Nos.5 to 8 as requested by defendant No.4 – Issuance of public notice in Film Magazine by plaintiff regarding the 16 films – Claim by defendant N o.1 that they acquired satellite broadcasting rights of the 16 Hindi films from defendant No.2, by assignment deed dated 21.3.1997 for a period of 99 years – Suit by plaintiffs in 2003, for declaration that defendant Nos. 1 to 4 have no manner of right, title and interest in the Copyright in respect of the scheduled films, and to pass a decree of perpetual injunction against defendant Nos.1 to 4 – Trial court holding that the cause of action arose in the year 1995 itself when the plaintiff got knowledge of claim of the first defendant over the given films and plaintiffs chosen to file the suit in the year 2003 in respect of agreement dated 10.10.1994 – Dismissal of suit as barred by limitation – Cause of action to a plaintiff to file a suit accrues when there is a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe a right of the plaintiff – On facts, plaintiff having already assigned their right for a period of 9 years by assignment deed dated 23.12.1994, there was no cause of action during the said period of 9 years – When the plaintiffs had already parted with their right of telecasting films on 23.12.1994 there could not have been any threat to their right in the year 1995 – Thus, the suit filed by the plaintiffs is within limitation – Order passed by the High Court upheld.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 When the plaintiffs assigned their rights to defendant Nos.5 to 8 on the request of defendant No.4 for a period of 9 years, plaintiffs having parted with their satellite rights could not have claimed any right for telecasting during the said period of 9 years. Inter se dispute between defendant Nos.4 and 3 which begun with filing suit in Mumbai there could not have been any cause of action for the plaintiffs to file a suit claiming telecasting rights for themselves. Furthermore, it was the case of the defendant No.3 itself that dispute between defendant No.3 and 4 subsided when the suit filed by defendant No.3 was returned in the year 1995 itself. It was submitted by the counsel for the appellants that even though DS filed a police complaint in the year 1995 itself with regard to the alleged assignment dated 10.10.1994 but no further proceedings were taken by DS thereafter. The trial court in its judgment has also returned a finding that the assignment dated 10.10.1994 by DS in favour of defendant No.4 and assignment dated 17.10.1994 by defendant No.4 to 3 has not been proved. [Para 14][983-C-F]
1.2 The trial court by its judgment dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit having accepted the case of the plaintiffs regarding assignment of telecasting rights of said schedule films i.e. assignment of 23.12.1994 in favour of defendant Nos. 5 to 8 at the request of defendant No.4 for 9 years. The plaintiffs’ claim for the right of schedule films arose only after 22.12.2003. They having parted with their right, there was no real threat to their right by any inter-se dispute between defendant Nos.4 and 3 or other defendants. It was on 22.12.2003 that plaintiffs again became entitled to assign telecasting rights of the aforesaid 16 films after the expiry of the period of 9 years of assigning the telecasting right of 16 films to defendant Nos.5 to 8 on the request of the defendant No.4 on valuable consideration. [Para 15][984-B-D]
1.3 The trial court had observed that cause of occasion arose in the year 1995 itself when the plaintiff got knowledge of claim of the first defendant over the given films and plaintiffs have chosen to file the suit in the year 2003 in respect of agreement dated 10.10.1994. The trial court further held that plaintiffs sat over their rights for eight long years, hence, suit is barred by time. The suit which was filed in the year 1995 by defendant No.3 against defendant No.4 in the Small Causes Court, Mumbai where assignments dated 10.10.1994 and 17.10.1994 were referred to got dismissed in the year 1995 itself as Small Causes Court had no jurisdiction to consider the claim of defendant No.3. [Para 16][984-E-F]
1.4 Cause of action to a plaintiff to file a suit accrues when there is a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe a right. The plaintiff having already assigned their right for a period of 9 years by assignment deed dated 23.12.1994, there was no cause of action during the aforesaid period of 9 years. When the plaintiffs had already parted with their right of telecasting films on 23.12.1994 there could not have been any threat to their right in the year 1995. Thus, in view of the pleadings on the record and facts of the present case, suit filed by the plaintiffs is well within limitation, the finding of the High Court that the suit is within limitation is based on correct appreciation of facts and pleadings. [Paras 17, 18][985-G-H; 986-G]
Daya Singh and another v. Gurdev Singh (Dead) by Lrs. And others (2010) 2 SCC 194 : [2010] 1 SCR 194 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.