1    

REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1716 OF 2020   

(arising out of SLP (C) No. 37416 of 2016)  

M/S. ZEE TELEFILMS LTD.         ...APPELLANT(S)   

(NOW KNOWN AS ZEE ENTERTAINMENT  

ENTERPRISES LTD.)  

VERSUS  

SURESH PRODUCTIONS & ORS.     ...RESPONDENT(S)   

J U D G M E N T  

ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.  

This appeal has been filed by the defendant against  

the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at  

Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of  

Andhra Pradesh dated 11.03.2016 allowing the  

plaintiffs’ appeal.  

2. Brief facts of the case for deciding this appeal  

are:  

The parties shall be referred to as described in  

the suit. The plaintiffs have been carrying on business

2    

of producing, distributing and exhibiting  

cinematographic films. On a request of 4th defendant,  

M/s. N.S. Films, the plaintiffs on 23.12.1994 assigned  

to four persons nominated by 4th defendant satellite  

broadcasting rights of 16 Hindi films for a period of  

9 years.  The assignments were made by six assignment  

deeds all dated 23.12.1994. In the year 1995,  

plaintiffs came to know about the pendency of the Small  

Causes Suit filed in Bombay, Small Causes Suit No.281  

of 1995 by 3rd defendant, M/s. Asia Vision against the  

4th defendant seeking for relief of declaration and  

injunction in respect of above 16 films, on the basis  

of certain documents purporting to be a deed of  

assignment dated 07.10.1994 and declaration dated  

15.10.1994 allegedly assigned by D. Suresh Babu  

assigning satellite and Doordarshan rights in favour  

of 4th defendant. The suit at Bombay was filed on the  

basis of notarised of the said forged documents. Shri  

D. Ramesh Babu, Director of first plaintiff lodged a  

complaint with the Police Station, Jubilee Hills,  

Hyderabad complaining about the said forgery. Defendant  

No.3 had also lodged complaint against 4th defendant

3    

and plaintiffs at Mumbai. Several criminal proceedings  

were filed by the plaintiffs as well as by defendant  

Nos.3 to 8. However, suit filed by the other parties  

came to be dismissed for default and controversy was  

subsided.   

3. The plaintiffs issued a public notice in the Film  

Information Magazine on 27.09.2003 with respect to the  

above said 16 Hindi films. A legal notice from first  

defendant on 14.10.2003 in reply to the notice of the  

plaintiffs was received where defendant No.1 claimed  

that they have acquired satellite broadcasting, Pay TV  

and Cable TV rights of all above 16 Hindi films from  

defendant No.2, M/s. B.N.U. & Co. vide deed of  

assignment dated 21.03.1997 for a period of 99 years  

and that, M/s. B.N.U. & Co. had in turn acquired the  

said rights from M/s. Asia Vision, defendant No.3, vide  

agreement dated 16.03.1997. The first defendant called  

upon the plaintiffs to withdraw the said public notice.  

The plaintiffs sent reply dated 17.10.2003 refuting   

the facts in the notice of the first defendant. The  

plaintiffs filed Original Suit No.392 of 2003 on  

11.11.2003 before the Chief Judge, City               

4    

Civil Courts, Hyderabad, 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, to  

pass a decree of perpetual injunction against defendant  

Nos. 1 to 4.   

4. First defendant filed written statement. It was  

pleaded that D. Suresh Babu representing the plaintiff  

Nos.1, 3 and 4 assigned T.V. Doordarshan and world  

satellite rights in the said 16 films in favour of 4th  

defendant on 10.10.1994 for a valuable consideration  

of Rs.55,00,000/-. The 6 assignment deeds dated  

23.12.1994 was alleged to be manufactured for the  

purpose of claiming rights in the suit scheduled films.  

Although, the above plaintiffs have already been  

divested of their rights by assignment dated 10.10.1994  

with 4th defendant. Under deed of assignment dated  

17.10.1994, the 4th defendant had assigned the rights  

to third defendant and third defendant in turn assigned  

the rights to second defendant by deed of assignment  

dated 16.03.1997. First defendant claims deed of  

assignment from second defendant by assignment deed  

dated 21.03.1997. First defendant pleaded that from

5    

21.03.1997 it has been exercising the satellite  

broadcasting rights acquired under the deed of  

assignment and the suit scheduled films have been  

telecasted as many as 223 times on various occasions  

since August 1997 till date. The allegations made in  

the plaint were denied. Defendant No.2 adopted the  

written statement filed by defendant No.3. Defendant  

No.3 also filed a written statement which was in the  

line of the written statement filed by defendant No.1.  

Reference of Suit No.221 to 225 of 1995 filed by the  

defendant Nos.4 to 8 was also made which were dismissed  

on 31.08.2000, the defendant No.3 claimed to be bona  

fide purchasers of suit scheduled 16 films for a  

valuable consideration, with regard to Small Causes  

Suit Nos. 281 of 1995 filed by defendant No.3 against  

defendant No.4 through Mrs. Nalini Shanker it was  

stated that it was not necessary to pursue as Small  

Causes Court, Mumbai was not having jurisdiction. It  

was pleaded that the plaintiffs were very well aware  

of as back as 1994 rights acquired from the plaintiffs  

on 10.10.1994.   

5. The trial court framed the following 10 issues:

6    

1) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?    

2) Whether the suit is barred by res judicata  in view of decree in O.S.Nos.18 to 21 of  

1996?  

3) Whether the plaintiffs acquiesced the  infringement of copy right of the scheduled  

films?  

4) Whether the claim of Defendant No.1 over the  plaint schedule films is true?  

5) Whether the suit transactions, as alleged by  the plaintiffs are true, valid and binding  

on the defendants?  

6) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the  declaration as prayed for?  

7) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the  perpetual injunction as prayed for?  

8) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the  delivery of tapes etc., as prayed for?  

9) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the  damages, as prayed for?  

10) To what relief?”    

6. On Issue No.1 trial court held that cause of action  

for filing the suit arose in the year 1995 itself when  

the plaintiff got knowledge of the claims of the first  

defendant over the given films and they have chosen to

7    

give report to the police in respect of the agreement  

dated 10.10.1994. Trial Court held that they slept over  

their rights for eight long years, hence, the suit  

claim is hopelessly barred by limitation.   

7. On Issue No.2, trial court held that suit is not  

barred by principle of res judicata. Issue Nos.4 to 9  

were answered in favour of the plaintiffs, it was held  

that the plaintiffs’ claim over the suit scheduled  

films is proved. The agreement dated 23.12.1994 was  

held to be proved whereas defendants have failed to  

prove the assignment dated 10.10.1994. The transactions  

alleged to have been entered into between 4th defendant  

and 3rd defendant in respect of 16 films was held not  

to be proved. Issue No.3 was also decided in favour of  

the plaintiffs. Trial court, however, in view of  

finding on Issue No.1 that suit is barred by limitation  

dismissed the suit by its judgment dated 09.03.2011.  

8. The plaintiffs aggrieved by the judgment of the  

trial court filed appeal before the Hight Court which  

appeal has been allowed by the High Court by impugned  

judgment dated 11.03.2016. The High Court noticed in

8    

the judgment that only point for determination in the  

appeal is: “Whether the finding of the trial court that  

suit was barred by limitation is factually and legally  

correct?” The High Court after considering the  

submissions of the learned counsel of the parties held  

that suit filed by the plaintiffs was not barred by  

limitation.  

9. The High Court held that in the year 1995 defendant  

Nos.1 and 2 were not in the scene and so the question  

of plaintiffs taking action against them does not  

arise. It held that to the plaintiffs cause of action  

arose for the first time when defendant No.1 issued  

notice dated 14.10.2003 and the suit having filed  

immediately thereafter was well within time. The High  

Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit in favour  

of the plaintiffs. Defendant No.1 aggrieved by the  

judgment of the High Court has come up in this appeal.  

10. Shri Sridhar Potaraju, learned counsel for the  

appellant submits that the plaintiffs had knowledge of  

violation of their rights qua scheduled 16 films in the  

year 1995. It is submitted that defendant No.3 has  

filed S.C. Suit No.281 of 1995 in Mumbai for

9    

declaration and injunction against defendant No.4 where  

reference of agreement dated 10.10.1994 and 17.10.1994  

was made. PW.1, D. Suresh Babu who appeared as witness  

in the present suit admitted having knowledge of the  

suit filed in the Bombay Court. It is further submitted  

that defendant Nos.4 to 8 had filed O.s.No.221 to 225  

of 1995 for declaration and injunction against  

plaintiff No.1 and defendant Nos. 3 and 4 before the  

City Civil Court, Hyderabad which suit was subsequently  

dismissed. Plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 has also filed  

O.S.No.16 of 1996 in the Court of Chief Judge, City  

Civil Court, Hyderabad against defendant Nos.3,4 and 8  

qua 3 films. The above facts clearly indicate that they  

had full knowledge of infringement of their right and  

ought to have filed suit within the period of  

limitation. He submits that Article 58 of the Indian  

Limitation Act provides that suit can be filed within  

three years from the date when the cause of action  

first arose. He further contends that plaintiff being  

aware of the claim of the defendants as reflected in  

various litigations and having not taken any action  

acquiesced to the claim of the defendants, hence, the

10    

suit is liable to be dismissed on the principle of  

acquiescence.  

11. Learned counsel for the respondents, Shri T.  

Raghuram refuting the submissions of the appellants  

contends that the High Court after considering the  

materials on record has rightly come to the conclusion  

that the suit was not barred by time. It is submitted  

that the alleged assignments dated 10.10.1994 and  

17.10.1994 which are foundation of the case of the  

defendants having not been proved in the suit and the  

trial court itself has found that the said assignments  

have not been proved, there was no cause of action to  

the plaintiff to file suit in the year 1995. It is  

submitted that assignment dated 23.12.1994 by the  

plaintiff in favour of defendant No.4 has been proved  

by which plaintiff has assigned broadcasting rights to  

defendant No.5 to 9 for a period of 9 years. The  

plaintiff was not concerned about the telecasting of  

films during the said period.It is submitted that cause  

of action arose to the plaintiff when they published  

notice in the Film Information Magazine with regard to  

prosecute their right to which reply was given on

11    

27.09.2003. It is submitted that cause of action arose  

when reply dated 14.10.2003 was received from defendant  

No.1 which claimed rights to the aforesaid 16 films.  

It is submitted that the suit of the plaintiffs was  

well within time and the High Court has rightly come  

to the said conclusion.  

12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and  

perused the records.  

13. The plaintiff's case in the plaint was that  

plaintiffs have assigned telecasting right of 16  

schedule films by 6 assignment deeds dated 23.12.1994  

for a period of 9 years in favour of defendant No.5 to  

8 as requested by defendant No.4. The trial court in  

its judgment while considering the Issue Nos.4 to 9 has  

specifically considered the assignment deed dated  

23.12.1994. While answering Issue Nos.4 to 9 especially  

assignment deed dated 23.12.1994 by the plaintiff in  

favour of defendant No.5 to 8 at the instance of  

defendant No.4, the trial court recorded the following  

finding:  

"It is an undisputed fact that originally  

copyright holders in respect of suit schedule  

films have been the plaintiffs firms only. D.W.1  

also accepted the same. It is the contention of

12    

the plaintiffs that Sr.D. Rama Naidu,  

representing plaintiffs firm has entered into  

assigned agreement with fourth defendant and  

assigned satellite and broadcasting rights over  

the suit schedule films for a period of nine  

years from 23.12.1994 to the nominees of fourth  

defendant i.e. Defendant No.5 to 8 for valuable  

consideration received by the plaintiffs from  

fourth defendant and acknowledging said  

assignment and receipt of the consideration vide  

letter dated 23.12.1994. Exs. A7 to A12 are  

assignment agreements pertaining to Defendant  

Nos.5 to 8. Defendant Nos. 4,5,6 and 8 have not  

chosen to contest the suit by filing written  

statement, though they appeared before the Court  

through their respective advocates. They have not  

even cross-examined the witnesses examined for  

plaintiff and first defendant and they have not  

adduced any evidence either. Thus, it is to be  

taken that, they are not actually disputing with  

the claims of the plaintiffs. By examining P.W.1  

before the court and by producing Exs.A7 to A12,  

plaintiffs could establish their claims in  

respect of assignment agreement entered into by  

plaintiffs with fourth defendant and their  

assignment rights over the suit schedule films  

and also expiry of the period of said assignment  

prior to the date of filing of this suit.”  

14. 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 aforesaid period of 9 years.  

Inter se dispute between defendant Nos.4 and 3 which  

begun with filing suit in Mumbai could not have been

13    

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 is submitted by  

the counsel for the appellants that even though D.  

Suresh Babu 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  

D.Suresh Babu thereafter. The trial court in its  

judgment has also returned a finding that the  

assignment dated 10.10.1994 by D. Suresh Babu in favour  

of defendant No.4 and assignment dated 17.10.1994 by  

defendant No.4 to 3 has not been proved. The trial  

court has itself returned the finding in paragraph  

10(iv) to the following effect:  

"10(iv) In such circumstances, it is the bounden  

duty of the defendants, who are relying upon such  

document i.e. assignment deed dated 10.10.1994  

to establish that such document has been executed  

by P.W.1 conveying satellite broadcasting rights  

and other rights over the suit schedule films to  

fourth Defendant. But no such evidence is adduced  

on record. Neither original nor any authenticated  

copy of the said document is produced before the  

Court. Further, documents relating to transaction

14    

alleged to have been entered into between fourth  

defendant and third defendant in respect of these  

films, also have not been produced before the  

Court. No evidence is adduced on record to  

establish the claims of the contesting defendants  

in respect of transfer of satellite broadcasting  

rights over the suit schedule films from one to  

another among Defendant Nos.3 and 4.”  

15. 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.  

16. The trial court while discussing Issue No.1 had

15    

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.   

17. 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. This

16    

Court in Daya Singh and another vs. Gurdev Singh (Dead)  

by Lrs. And others, (2010) 2 SCC 194, had laid down  

that a right to sue accrues when there is a clear and  

unequivocal threat to infringe a right of plaintiff.  

In paragraphs 14 and 15 following was laid down:  

“14. In support of the contention that the  

suit was filed within the period of limitation,  

the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the  

appellant-plaintiffs before us submitted that  

there could be no right to sue until there is  

an accrual of the right asserted in the suit  

and its infringement or at least a clear and  

unequivocal threat to infringe that right by  

the defendant against whom the suit is  

instituted. In support of this contention the  

learned Senior Counsel strongly relied on a  

decision of the Privy Council in Bolo v.  

Koklan, AIR 1930 PC 270. In this decision Their  

Lordships of the Privy Council observed as  

follows: (IA p. 331)  

“… There can be no ‘right to sue’ until  

there is an accrual of the right asserted  

in the suit and its infringement, or at  

least a clear and unequivocal threat to  

infringe that right, by the defendant  

against whom the suit is instituted.”  

15. A similar view was reiterated in C.  

Mohammad Yunus v. Syed Unnissa,AIR 1961 SC 808,  

in which this Court observed: (AIR p. 810, para  

7)  

“7. … The period of six years prescribed  

by Article 120 has to be computed from the  

date when the right to sue accrues and there  

could be no right to sue until there is an

17    

accrual of the right asserted in the suit  

and its infringement or at least a clear  

and unequivocal threat to infringe that  

right.”  

In C. Mohammad Yunus, this Court held that the  

cause of action for the purposes of Article 58  

of the Act accrues only when the right asserted  

in the suit is infringed or there is at least a  

clear and unequivocal threat to infringe that  

right. Therefore, the mere existence of an  

adverse entry in the revenue records cannot give  

rise to cause of action.”  

18. We are of the view that 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. We do not find any merit in this appeal.  

The appeal is dismissed.  

......................J.  

                                ( ASHOK BHUSHAN )  

......................J.  

                                 ( NAVIN SINHA )  

New Delhi,  

February 25, 2020.