R.F.A. No. 749 of 2010. Case: Helen Britto Vs Jessy Rasquinha and Ors.. High Court of Kerala (India)
| Case Number | R.F.A. No. 749 of 2010 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Roy Chacko, P. Frosy and K.C. Vincent, Advs. |
| Judges | P.N. Ravindran and Mary Joseph, JJ. |
| Issue | Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order XXVI Rule 11; Section 151 |
| Judgement Date | February 02, 2017 |
| Court | High Court of Kerala (India) |
Judgment:
P.N. Ravindran, J.
-
This appeal arises from the final decree passed by the Court of the IInd Additional Subordinate Judge of Ernakulam on 19.12.2009 in O.S. No. 1098 of 1995, a suit for settlement of accounts instituted by the appellant. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
-
The appellant is the wife of the first cousin of the first respondent. The first respondent/first defendant was engaged in the business of production of feature films. The appellant and the first defendant entered into an agreement on 28.9.1993 regarding the production of a malayalam movie by name 'Chukkan'. Yet another agreement was entered into on 28.11.1993. As per the terms of the agreement between the parties, the appellant would be the joint owner of the film 'Chukkan' and two more films. She was also entitled to a share in the profits. The understanding between the parties was that they would contribute finances to meet the expenditure for production of the films. It appears, contrary to the agreement between the parties, the first defendant assigned the rights over the film 'Chukkan' to the second defendant as per agreement dated 27.12.1993. On coming to know of it, the appellant herein instituted O.S. No. 228 of 1994 in the Court of the IInd Additional Munsiff of Ernakulam joining the respondents herein as defendants and prayed for a declaration that the film 'Chukkan' was produced under a joint venture between the plaintiff and the first defendant and the first defendant has no right to deal with the said film without her consent. She also prayed for a declaration that Ext. A23 agreement between defendants 1 and 2 is not binding on her and a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from further exhibiting the film without her consent. Though the appellant/plaintiff prayed for an interim order of injunction in that suit, that was not granted by the trial court. The appellate court also did not grant that relief. The appellant/plaintiff thereupon filed C.R.P. No. 942 of 1994 in this court. C.R.P. No. 942 of 1994 was heard and disposed of by a learned single Judge of this court by order passed on 18.7.1994. The operative portion of the order passed by this court in C.R.P. No. 942 of 1994 reads as follows:
5. From Exts. A1 and A3 it could be seen that it was actually a joint venture and Ext. B9 further shows that the investment made by the plaintiff is more than that of the first defendant. The right over the film has been transferred to the 2nd defendant and moneys are due pursuant to that. If ultimately the plaintiff wins in getting a declaration that it is a joint venture and she is entitled to share the profit under Ext. Al, and if by that time the entire money is received by the first defendant, it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial