When Rana Daggubati squared off with MGR

Suresh Productions asked to pay damages for using the title ‘Naan Aanaiyittal’’

A still from MGR starrer movie “Naan Anaiyittal”.

More than 50 years after the release of the film Enga Veetu Pillai, starring MGR, the iconic song from the movie — Naan Aanaiyittal — continues to be in the news.

When it was released, the movie, and particularly the song, wowed the masses so much that the very next year (in 1966), Sathya Movies produced a movie titled Naan Aanaiyittal. Now, about 52 years later, the Madras High Court has directed a production house to pay damages of ₹30 lakh to Sathya Movies for having used the same title for a Rana Daggubati starrer released last year.

Justice C.V. Karthikeyan decreed a civil suit filed by the producers of the 1966 movie and directed Suresh Productions, which had dubbed Daggubati’s Telugu movie

Nene Raja Nene Mantri in Tamil with the title

Naan Aanaiyittal , to pay the damages along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realisation.

The judge also declared that the act of having used the Tamil title for the 2017 film was an infringement of copyright and passing off the title owned by Sathya Movies. He granted a permanent injunction restraining Suresh Productions and its distributors from exploiting the Tamil title any further in cinema theatres as well as television channels.

In its plaint, Sathya Movies claimed to have registered the title of its movie with the Tamil Film Producers Council.

It also accused Suresh Productions of having released the Tamil dubbed version of Daggubati’s movie last year with the title

Naan Aanayittal, despite having been issued with a notice to desist from doing so.

No show by defendant

The plaintiff also said that he had lodged complaints with the Film and Television Producers Guild of South India, the Film Chamber of Commerce, the producers’ council as well as the film distributors association before filing the present suit for alleged violation of the provisions of the Copyright Act of 1957.

Though the court ordered notice to Suresh Productions as early as January this year, no one entered appearance on behalf of it to defend the suit. Hence, after giving sufficient opportunity, the court set the production house as ex-parte and began recording evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff production house.

Thereafter, the judge heard oral arguments and perused the documentary evidence to conclude that the plaintiff had proved the suit claim and granted all the relief that had been sought for.