Daily Times

The legal battle surrounding ‘Maula Jatt’ film has taken a dramatic turn with the emergence of some astonishing documents regarding ownership of the 1979 cult classic.

In a series of shocking revelations, concrete evidence has emerged showing that ‘Maula Jatt’ 1979 is not owned solely by Sarwar Bhatti to begin with. In a press conference held on Thursday at the Lahore Press Club, it was revealed that the film was owned by Bahu Films Corporation which was registered under a partnership deed between six parties out of which Chaudhry Muhammad Jamil and Sarwar Bhatti were the main investors. Until today, Bhatti has claimed that the film was his sole proprietorship and he alone owned all the rights to the film, due to which a series of litigation has followed in the Lahore High Court against director Bilal Lashari and producer Ammara Hikmat of ‘The Legend of Maula Jatt’.

This claim was challenged by Chaudhry Muhammad Jamil’s legal heirs who have come forward with proof that Muhammad Jamil was not only a major investor and executive producer in Bahu Films Corporation but also held the presenting title in all their films.

They presented legal documents that included the original partnership deed signed in 1978 under which all films that were produced under the banner were the ownership of the corporation and did not belong to any single individual, as fraudulently portrayed by Bhatti. Saim Jamil, son of Muhammad Jamil stated that he is now coming forward after he saw Bhatti on media blatantly lying about film ownership.

In a tragic turn of events, Muhammad Jamil was murdered in 1996 after which Bhatti made a few attempts to get ownership transfer papers signed by his widow but she refused to give in.

Saim Jamil’s legal counsel Advocate Almas Jovindah stated, “Bhatti has been misrepresenting the facts and concealed documents from the court by stating that he owned the original ‘Maula Jatt’ in sole proprietorship. When in fact, the film like many others produced during that time, were the property of Bahu Films Corporation which was a partnership concern. Bhatti has been making many claims regarding the rightful ownership when he himself has not accounted for the rights of the partners in Bahu Films Corporation.”

Almas Jovindah further stated, “The copyrights and trademark belong to the corporation and not an individual person. Bhatti has not settled accounts with the shareholders as agreed in the partnership deed.”

In a clip of a television interview given by Bhatti to a news channel which was shown on the press conference, he stated that the film earned so much revenue it ended up giving billions in taxes. Saim’s counsel argued as to why none of the earnings that were made ever reached Muhammad Jamil’s family. He stated, “Muhammad Jamil worked hard for this corporation and gave many years to make films like ‘Maula Jatt’ a success. His elder son Saim was only six years old when he was murdered and they could not fight or pursue any legal discourse at that time. How can Bhatti make such claims when he himself never gave the rightful owners their ownership or gain from all the earnings he made?”

Muhammad Jamil owned 25 percent of the shares along with his father-in-law Iqbal Malik who owned 10 percent shares and together the family held 35 percent shares in Bahu Film Corporation. The documents presented in the press conference also included an Income Tax Assessment Order in which Muhammad Jamil was duly recognised as the partner in the Corporation. The legal counsel also further presented a letter by the Pakistan Films Producer Association which stated that Muhammad Jamil was recognised as the feature film producer of ‘Maula Jatt’ and other films produced by Bahu Corporation.

Bhatti has pursued a tumultuous legal route towards claiming that he is the sole owner of the original film ‘Maula Jatt’. These rightful owners of ‘Maula Jatt’ 1979 have not only challenged Bhatti’s Trademark and Copyright certificates but also challenged Intellectual Property Rights Organisation of Pakistan in the Sindh High Court for fraudulent issuance of copyright certificates.