Madras High Court
S.Mahalingam vs Vasan Publications Pvt. Ltd
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRDAS
Judgment Reserved on: 16.04.2024
Judgment Delivered on : 29.07.2024
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012
---
S.Mahalingam .. Plaintiff
Vs.
1. Vasan Publications Pvt. Ltd.,
Represented by its Chairman,
Managing Director/Executive Director,
No.757, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.
2. B.Srinivasan
Managing Director/Director,
Vasan Publications Pvt. Ltd.,
No.757, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.
3. Vikadan Pressuram,
Represented by its Proprietor/Partner/Director,
No.757, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.
.. Defendants
Plaint (numbered as C.S.(Comm.Div).522 of 2012) filed under Order VI
Rule 1 of the Madras High Court Original Side Rules, Order VII Rule 1 of the
Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), read with Sections 2, 14, 17, 51, 55 and
Section 62 of the Copyright Act of 1957, for passing judgment and decree as
Page No.1/78
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012
follows:
(i) Permanent injunction against the defendants, their Directors, their
subsidiary companies, divisions, departments, officers, editors, publishers,
printers, news agents, photographers, agents, whole-sellers, retailers, servants
and all others acting for or on their behalf, either directly or under a contract of
service or through a contract for service, restraining them from infringing the
plaintiff's copyright in any of the ark works (in particular the pen and ink on
paper and paintings), including those published under the title "Thennattu
Selvangal" in Ananda Vikadan during the period 1948 to 1961, of Late
P.M.Sreenivasan, popularly known as "Silpi" by copying, re-producing, printing,
publishing, either in Ananda Vikadan magazine, Sakthi vikadan magazine or any
other magazine, book or publication of the defendants, their sister companies,
divisions and selling, distributing or in any manner dealing with them, and
(b) The defendants be directed to deliver up to the plaintiff or his
authorized representative for destruction all soft copies, negatives, prints, blocks
and all physical hard copies of the infringing works in particular that made under
the title "Thennattu Selvangal" held under print or in stock by itself or in its
branches or with its whole sellers or distributors, retailers and
(c) For costs of this proceedings.
For plaintiff : Mr.G.R.Muthukumar, assisted by Mr.R.Praveen and
Mr.R.Prabakaran
For defendants : Mr.Perumbulavil Radhakrishnan for Mr.S.P.Vijayaragavan and
Mr.A.Raja Ramesh
Page No.2/78
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012
JUDGMENT
Plaint (numbered as C.S.(Comm.Div).522 of 2012) filed under Order VI Rule 1 of the Madras High Court Original Side Rules, Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), read with Sections 2, 14, 17, 51, 55 and Section 62 of the Copyright Act of 1957, for the following reliefs:
(i) A permanent injunction against the defendants, their Directors, their subsidiary companies, divisions, departments, officers, editors, publishers, printers, news agents, photographers, agents, whole-sellers, retailers, servants and all others acting for or on their behalf, either directly or under a contract of service or through a contract for service, restraining them from infringing the plaintiff's copyright in any of the ark works (in particular the pen and ink on paper and paintings), including those published under the title "Thennattu Selvangal" in Ananda Vikadan during the period 1948 to 1961, of Late P.M.Sreenivasan, popularly known as "Silpi" by copying, re-producing, printing, publishing, either in Ananda Vikadan magazine, Sakthi vikadan magazine or any other magazine, book or publication of the defendants, their sister companies, divisions and selling, distributing or in any manner dealing with them.
(ii) the defendants be directed to deliver up to the plaintiff or his authorized representative for destruction all soft copies, negatives, prints, blocks Page No.3/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012 and all physical hard copies of the infringing works in particular that made under the title "Thennattu Selvangal" held under print or in stock by itself or in its branches or with its whole sellers or distributors, retailers and
(iii) for costs of this proceedings.
3. The case of the plaintiff in a nut-shell, is as follows:
(a) The plaintiff is the son of Shri.P.M.Srineevasan, a well-known and renowned artist, popularly known as "Silpi". The plaintiff's father (Silpi) was born in the year 1919 at Puliyur, a small village near Kumbakonam to Mahadeva Iyer and Lakshmi Ammaal. Silpis father later established a flourishing timber business in Namakkal and hence, settled down there. Silpi had his early education at Board High School, Namakkal and his talent at art/drawing came to light in his early childhood at about the age of 8 years itself. The famous Tamil poet Namakkal Kavingnar recognised his talent and joined him in the Government School of Arts and Crafts, Madras, around the year 1939. It was a six-year course. In view of his talent, Silpi was able to excel other students and to complete the entire course in three years by getting two double promotions.
This had never happened or repeated itself in the history of the Government School of Arts and Crafts, Madras (now known as Government College of Arts and Crafts) till date. Around the year 1939-40, Silpi was a first year student Page No.4/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012 when the said College conducted a painting competition for all its students and Silpi's painting titled "Festive Pandal" was adjudged the best painting and was awarded the first price by none other than our Prime Minister Shri.Jawaharlal Nehru. His said painting received national acclaim and recognition being reported in almost all the dailies and magazines of that time. Silpi had a rare talent at art and in view of which, he was able to excel others. He excelled in particular, in line drawing (i.e. drawing with pen and ink on paper), water colour paintings, caricature drawings, story illustrations and jokes.
(b) In those days, artists were not well paid, compared to writers and editors. Silpi's talent made him excel all other artists of his time and his talent was widely appreciated and well recognised, in view of which, even during his studies at the said College, i.e. in the year 1941, he, a student in art then, was approached to license his drawings for the weekly magazine "Ananda Vikadan". This was a contract for service, for which, he was paid a license fee/Royalty as consideration on a piece work basis. Silpi successfully completed his study and passed out in the year 1943 to pursue a career as an artist. He was thereafter till his death in the year 1983, engaged by various reputed publishing companies at various points of time, jointly and severally, including by the first and third defendants to license his drawings/art work and paintings for use by them. All these were done purely on a contract for service basis with a specific sum paid towards the license fee/Royalty, which was either paid on a monthly basis (which Page No.5/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012 was regular or need bound) or per work basis. Silpi was always the author and first owner of copyright in all his art works.
(c) The materials were purchased by Silpi and the drawing/painting was done as per his convenience, i.e. at any time, day and place of his choice, and no one had a say in this. Silpi's drawings were never imaginative or born out of memory. None of those who engaged his services had any say in the object to be drawn, the view or what, how and where it is to be drawn. He was paid a monetary sum towards licence fee/Royalty as consideration for the works of his choice which he licensed to those who engaged his services. Hence, Silpi was the author and first owner of the copyright in all his art works.
(d) The art work, i.e. drawings and paintings of Silpi mainly pertains to the images of Gods, Goddesses and Temples, drawn or painted as physically seen by Silpi. This was the speciality of his drawings and this prompted many publishers, corporate houses and the Government to utilise his drawings and paintings on payment on a suitable sum of money towards license fee/Royalty. Some of the publishing houses retained him for many number of years and paid regular sums towards license fee/Royalty. Some others engaged him and paid him license fee on a work basis. The first and second defendants', their parent concerns, had also engaged Silpi's paintings in their publication on a regular basis, for which, he was paid a consideration by way of license fee/Royalty consideration. However, the nature of work remained the same as mentioned Page No.6/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012 earlier.
(e) Silpi, during his life-time, drawn or painted the pictures of various Gods, Goddess and Temples from Kanyakumari to Badrinath, over a career spread over more than 50 years and attained great repute and fame. During his life-time, Silpi had drawn more than 5000 drawings (pen and ink on paper), 108 colour paintings of Deities of famous Indian Temples and more than 400 other colour paintings, apart from caricatures, story illustration drawings and joke drawings and other drawings. Whenever Silpi went out on his drawing expedition, he stayed with a priest or Gurukal and did not stay in a Lodge or Hotel, nor did he eat outside. He mostly prepared his own food or eat at the Gurukul's house. He led a very pious and astute life, due to which he had the rare privilege of entering the sancum-sanctoram of various Temples and Mutts in India, where entry is strictly restricted. Silpi had the rare opportunity to paint the picture of Lord Venkateswara at Tirumala, Tirupathi, along with his consort Goddess Padmavathi. For this purpose of painting the Lord alone, Silpi spent 200 hours (ie. 5 hours every 40 days) at the sanctum-sanctoram of the Tirumala Temple. The colour picture/painting of Lord Venkateswara and Goddess Padmavathi, which was first issued by Tirumala Tirupathi Deveasthanam and used the devotees for worship is the art work of Silpi.
(f) Some of the prominent drawings of Silpi are as follows:
(i) Sri Karpavinayagar - Pillaiyar Patti, Page No.7/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012
(ii) Sri Balaji(Venkatachalapthy)I,II-Thirumala-Thirupati
(iii) Sri Anjaneyar - Namakkal
(iv) Sri Renganathar - Srirangam
(v) Sri Guruvayurappan (1965 and 1978) - Guruvayur.
(vi) Sri Parthasarathy Perumal(Krishnar)-Triplicane,Chennai
(vii) Sri Ramanathaswamy - Rameshwaram,
(viii) Sri Somasundareshwarar - Madurai
(ix) Sri Dhandayuthapani(Palani Aandavar-Raja Alangaram), Palani
(x) Sri Kamakshi Amman (1951, 1964, 1963, 1968) - Kancheepuram.
(xi) Sri Mariamman - Samayapuram
(x) Sri Andal - Srivilliputhur,
(xi) Sri Karpakambal - Mylapore, Chennai
(x) Sri Dhandayuthapani - Palani Sannathi, etc.
(g) Some of the prominent paintings of Silpi are of the Temples at Mylapore, Tanjore, Kumbakonam, Tirukarukkavur, Seerkali, Namakkal, Srirangam, Sanmayapurm, Srivilliputhur, Triplicane, Sriperumpudur, Tiruthani, Srisailam, Dwaraka, Badrinath, Kasi and Ujjani, etc.
(h) Having rocketed to fame and established his name as a famous, reputed and talented artist with divine grace, Silpi passed away on 10.01.1983.
He is survived by the two children, namely the plaintiff and his younger sister R.Saradambal. Silpi did not execute any "Will" as regards any of his art work (drawings or paintings) and none of them have been sold/assigned by him to anyone during his life-time. Hence, after his demise, the copyright in all his art Page No.8/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012 work/drawings and paintings came to vest with the plaintiff and his sister and they have been exploiting their copyright by licensing the same to publishers, corporate entities, Government Departments and individuals in various ways including by using them on yearly calendars, greeting cards, books, articles, news items, pocket pictures, laminations for use in "Pooja" rooms, book-lets, loose prints, use in devotional CDs, key chains, marriage invitations, pamphlets for distribution during marriage and interior decorations, purely on a license basis for a license fee/Royalty consideration.
(i) Silpi had drawn various drawings using pen and ink on paper right from the age of eight years. He had licensed a one-time publication in Ananda Vikadan, a weekly magazine published by the defendants/their predecessor-in- title, of various pen and ink drawings of his for a license fee/Royalty consideration. These were published during the period from 1948 to 1961. Silpi, during his life-time or the plaintiff thereafter, have not assigned the copyright in any of these works or any other art works, either to the defendants or to any one else.
(j) The plaintiff came to know that (i) an Advertisement in Ananda Vikadan, dated 01.08.2012, a publication of the defendants 1 and 3 in particular and (ii) from an advertisement in "Vikadan Pressuram", July-August 2012 issue, which is also a publication of the defendants 1 and 3, that the defendants are about to come out with a combined publication of the art works of Silpi that Page No.9/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012 were previously published in the weekly magazine Ananda Vikadan, under the title "Thennattu Selvangal" during the period 1948 to 1961, the copyright, which now vests with the plaintiff and his sister, without their consent. The plaintiff also came to know that the defendants are copying, re-producing, printing, selling and distributing the art works of Silpi in their weekly magazine "Sakthi Vikadan"without their permission. The act of the defendants, amounts to infringement of the plaintiff's copyright over the said art works. The plaintiff's sister is a house-wife and does not involve herself with the licensing aspect and related issues, which is being taken care of by the plaintiff.
(k) Hence, for the reasons stated above, the plaintiff has filed the present suit, for the relief stated supra.
4. The second defendant had filed written statement, stating as under:
(i) The second defendant has filed the written statement in his capacity as Managing Director of the first defendant-M/s.Vasan Publications Private Limited and the third defendant-vikadan Prasuram.
(ii) Various facts which form part of the dispute in the present suit, relates to the period between 1943 and 1967, when the grand-father of the second defendant, Mr.T.S.Srinivasan (popularly known as Thiru.S.S.Vasan) and the father of the second defendant, namely Mr.S.Balasubramanian were involved with the publication.
Page No.10/78
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012
(iii) Mr.Silpi sought employment in Anada vikadan through Mr.Maali, the then artist of Ananda vikadan and that on his (Mr.Maali) recommendation, Mr.Silpi joined as an artist in Ananda vikadan. This is evident from the letter, dated 25.06.1943, written by Mr.Maali to Mr.Silpi which has been re-produced by eminent write Mr.SAAVI in his article published about SILPI. Thus, Silpi became an employee of Ananda vikadan from the year around 1943 till 1967. This fact has been admitted by the plaintiff himself in several occasions, more specifically, in his interview/article published in "Kumudam Junction" magazine, dated 27.05.2003. The plaintiff is estopped from denying this fact now. Silpi was in exclusive employment of Ananda vikadan till 1967 and that he did not draw/work for any other magazine or publisher during this period. Work made in the course of the artist's employment, the employer, i.e. Ananda vikadan shall be the first owner of the copyright therein. The plaintiff's meeting Maha Paramacharyal of Kanchi in the year 1953 may be an inspiration to the artist. The fact remains that the serial "Thennattu Selvangal" was started by Ananda vikadan magazine much earlier, i.e. in the year 1948 itself and the artist was already drawing the portraits sketches of characters of a story, political leaders, cricket players, musicians and cartoons for articles and jokes till his retirement from Ananda vikadan. As an artist, he created all kinds of work for Ananda vikadan during his employment and hence, it is incorrect to state that he was drawing only the Portraits of God and Goddess.
Page No.11/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012
(iv) As far as the serial of art works in "Thennattu Selvangal" and "Shetradanam", they were published in Ananda vikadan magazine for a long period, from the year 1948 to 1961. Would such a lengthy serial be done without the direction of editorial/publisher ? An artist/employee cannot imagine such a lengthy serial without the wishes/commitment of the publisher, and the contribution by Silpi including Thennattu Selvangal and Shetradanam, are towards a collective works along with contribution of editorial. As far as the collective works are concerned, Ananda vikadan is the owner of the collective work, including the art works, and therefore, the publisher Ananda vikadan, was the owner of published work.
(v) Mr.P.M.Srinivasan alias Silpi was on regular employment for the Ananda vikadan magazine without any break in service till his retirement in the year 1967. During this period, he did not work for any other magazine or for his financial benefit/own account. Thus, he was full-time employee, which has been admitted and acknowledged by him on several occasions till his death. Either while in employment or till his death, he never claimed copyright in the published work in Ananda vikadan. The alleged creation and utilisation of his art works by corporate houses and Government was well after his retirement from defendants' service.
(vi) Silpi was entitled to and accordingly paid all other benefits as an employee. He used to attend the office from 10 am to 5.30 pm on all working Page No.12/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012 days. Sometimes, he was sent out of Chennai on assignment to draw/work for the magazine at the expense of publisher. All the expenses of his travel, boarding and lodging were borne by the employee. The affidavits sworn by artist Mr.Gopulu and artist Mr.Vani who were the co-employee with Silpi at Ananda Vikadan clarifies this fact and in fact, the plaintiff relies on the statement given by Artist Mr.Gopulu about Silpi published in vikadan Diamond Jubilee issue 2002; the write-up by Mr.Manian about Silpi published in "Idhayam Pesukirathu", dated 23.01.1983 and an article written by Mr.SAAVI about Silpi. These published statements/write-ups are supporting the case of the defendants. These documents are filed and relied on by the plaintiff as plaint-documents. Those statements have been clarified by swearing supporting affidavits by the said artists. The plaintiff cannot raise objections and is estopped from denying the supporting affidavit of artist Mr.Gopulu and the defendants have no claim over the drawing/painting drawn by Mr.Silpi after termination of his employment with Ananda vikadan.
(vii) It is admitted by the second defendant that first defendant is the publisher of "Ananda vikadan" magazine. The work "Thennagttu Selvangal"
comprise of two persons, (i) Art work and (2) write-up, which were published in Ananda Vikadan magazine during 1948 to 1961. Mr.P.M.Srinivasan alias Silpi was a renowned artist and was contributing in the form of the art work in "Thennattu Selvangal" and the write-up which forms part of it, was written by Page No.13/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012 editorial division of Ananda vikadan magazine and the title "Thennattu Selvangal" was conceived by the editorial team. Thus, the work "Thennattu Selvangal" was produced exclusively for publication in Ananda vikadan.
(viii) The deceased artist P.M.Srinivasan alias Silpi was employed as an artist for "Ananda vikadan" magazine from the year around 1943 and around till 1967, which is abundantly evident from the statements, articles published by various eminent authors. These documents are filed and relied on by the plaintiff himself. There existed employer-employee relationship and it was a continuous relationship till 1967 without any break. The plaintiff himself has stated/declared publicly on several occasions that his father was an employee of Ananda vikadan magazine from 1943 for 22 years and the interview thereunder was published in Kumudam Junction Magazine, dated 27.05.2003. Hence, as publisher/Proprietor, the first defendant is the owner of all the works, including the art work in "Thennattu Selvangal" done by P.M.Srinivasan alias Silpi, during and in course of his employment exclusively for the Ananda vikadan magazine. The defendants do not claim copyright in respect of works made by Silpi either before or after his employment, i.e. either before 1943 or after 1967.
(ix) Sometimes Mr.P.M.Srinivasan alias Silpi was sent out of Chennai on assignment to draw/work for the magazine at the expense of publisher. All the tools and stationary including pen, pencil, paint, brush, drawing sheets, etc., were provided by publisher. Silpi himself had admitted this fact in one of the Page No.14/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012 statement published in Dinamani, dated 05.04.1970. During this period, he did not work for any other magazine or for his financial benefit/own account. Thus, he was full time employee which has been admitted and acknowledged by him on several occasions till his death. Either, while in employment or till his death, he never claimed copyright in the published work. P.M.Srinivasan alias Silpi's duties include to draw cartoons and paintings for jokes and stories/articles respectively. Apart from these assigned works, he performed his regular duty of drawings / cartoons for the magazine as an employee. During this period of employment, he did not draw/work for any other magazine.
(x) The published work "Thennattu Selvangal" was well received by its readers and made Mr.P.M.Srinivasan alias Silpi very popular. Recently, the first defendant decided to publish the collection of published work in book format under the same title "Thennattu Selvangal". The copyright of the published work vest with the publisher/first defendant. The work of an employee (P.M.Srinivasan) alias Silpi, produced in the course of his employment for the purpose of publication in Ananda vikadan magazine in the absence of any contractual obligation vests unto the employer all statutory rights as regards publication and re-production for the purposes of publication in such magazine or periodical. Therefore, the first defendant possesses all the right, title in the work produced by its employee in the course of employment and already published in its magazine.
Page No.15/78
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012
(xi) If a work is done by an author for consideration, in the course of employment for a publisher, the copyright in it would normally vest in publisher subject to any contract to the contrary. In the absence of any contract to the contrary, the proprietor or publisher of magazines and periodicals, are the first owners as regards the works created by employees in the course of employment, which is affirmed by Section 17(a) of the Copyright Act.
(xii) The plaintiff, having admitted in the plaint that the defendants are the publisher of the disputed art work, it is for the plaintiff to prove prima-facie that those works were not made by the deceased author in the course of employment under a contract of service under defendants and that there was an agreement to the contrary as regards copyrights. The burden of proving the existence of contract to the contrary and wriggling out of such obligations under such contract, is cast upon the person who denies the ownership of publisher. Section 17 of the Copyright Act empowers the proprietor/publisher as first owner and to re-produce the work for the purpose of it being so published, and therefore, the averment of the plaintiff that the defendants will have no right to re-produce or re-publish the work under Section 17 is denied. Mere possession of originals of published art works in the capacity as son of the author, will not make the plaintiff as owner of the works as against the publisher/proprietor. Those art works were created in the course of his employment for publication and after such publication, these would have been taken away by him. Page No.16/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012
(xiii) Where an author creates a work at the instance of another person for valuable consideration, it is a case of contract of service, i.e., when a painter/artist draws a portrait, at the instance of another person and even in cases of commissioned works, in the absence of a contrary agreement, the person at whose instance the work is made, is the owner of the copyright in the work. In the present case, there is no such contrary agreement and where the employer happens to be the Proprietor of a newspaper or magazine or similar periodicals and the employee creates the work for the purpose of publishing the work in such periodical, then the employer is the owner of copyright.
(xiv) It is demonstrated that, as publisher, the first defendant is the owner of the published work produced by its employee in the course of employment and that copyright vests with the first defendant/Vaasan Publication Private Limited, and that the claim of copyright by the plaintiff in the entire work "Thennattu Selvangal" had been disproved. The plaintiff never made any claim of copyright in the work "Thennattu Selvangal" from the date of death of his father, till filing of the present suit. Thus, prima-facie case is in favour of the defendants. The defendants have printed and published the compilation of work "Thennattu Selvangal" and several lakhs of Rupees, have been spent for printing and publication. The book is already being sold in the market and therefore, the balance of convenience is also in favour of the defendants/owner of the copyright in publishing the work owned by them.
Page No.17/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012
(xv) Further, there is no cause of action for filing the present suit. The relief of bare injunction is not maintainable against the real owner. As the compilation of work "Thennattu Selvangal" was already printed, published and sold, the relief of injunction becomes infructuous and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
5. On the basis of the pleadings and documents annexed therewith, this Court framed the following issues on 03.06.2014:
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the alleged copyright in any of the art works including those published under the title "Thennattu Selvangal" in Ananda vikadan, during the period from 1948 to 1967 of Late P.M.Sreenivasan popularly known as "Silpi" by copying, re-producing, printing, publishing, either in Ananda vikadan magazine, Sakthi vikadan Magazine or any other magazine, book or publication of the defendants ?
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree directing the defendants for destruction of all soft copies, negatives, prints, blocks and all physical hard copies of the alleged infringed works that made under the title "Thennattu Selvangal" ?
(iii) Whether the father of the plaintiff, Mr.Silpi was employee of Ananda vikadan from the year around 1943 till 1967 ?
Page No.18/78
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012
(iv) Whether the works "Thennattu Selvangal" comprising Art work and write-up, were created for publication in Ananda vikadan magazine from 1948 to 1961 during the employment of Mr.Silpi with Anada Vikadan ?
(v) Whether the publisher is the owner of the published work "Thennattu Selvangal", in view of Section 17 of the Copyright Act ?
(vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim copyright ownership in the published work "Thennattu Selvangal" ?
(vii) Relief and costs ?
6. This Court, on 13.11.2017, framed the following additional issues:
(i) Whether Silpi was under a contract of service or contract for service with Ananda vikadan magazine ?
(ii) Whether the defendants claim of copyright is restricted under Section 17(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957 to publication of Silpi's art work in Ananda vikadan magazine alone during the years 1948 to 1967 or it extends to subsequent publication in Ananda vikadan magazine over later years ?
(iii) Whether the defendants' claim of copyright is restricted under Section 17(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957 to publication of Silpi's art work in Ananda vikadan magazine alone during the years 1948 to 1967 or it extends to subsequent publication in Ananda vikadan magazine, subsequent publications in other magazines of the defendants, books or as a compilation, over later years ? Page No.19/78
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012
(iv) What are the other respects of copyright that Author Silpi is now entitled to under Section 17(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957 ?
7. At the outset, it is useful to quote Section 17(a) of the Copyright Act of 1957, which reads as follows:
CHAPTER IV OWNERSHIP OF COPYRIGHT AND
RIGHTS OF THE OWNER
17. First owner of copyright— Subject to the
provisions of this Act, the author of a work shall be the first owner of the copyright therein: Provided that—
(a) in the case of a literary, dramatic or artistic work made by the author in the course of his employment by the proprietor of a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical under a contract of service or apprenticeship, for the purpose of publication in a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical, the said proprietor shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright in the work in so far as the copyright relates to the publication of the work in any newspaper, magazine or similar periodical, or to the reproduction of the work for the purpose of its being so published, but in all other respects the author shall be the first owner of the copyright in the work; 1 Ins.
by Act 27 of 2012, s. 5(iii)(a), (w.e.f. 21-6-2012)."
Page No.20/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012
8. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the Silpi had drawn more than 5000 drawings (Pen and ink on paper) and 108 colour paintings of Deities of famous Indian Temples and more than 400 other water colour paintings, apart from caricatures, story illustration drawings and drawings relating to Jokes during his life-time. The plaintiff himself and his sister R.Saradha, are the only legal heirs of Silpi, on whom, all the copyrights in the art-work of Silpi, devolved after the death of Silpi in the year 1983. Silpi, during his life-time and the plaintiff and his sister thereafter had not assigned their copyright to any-one, more so, the defendants. On coming to know about the infringing acts of defendants, the plaintiff came forward to file the present suit against the defendants and the infringing act of defendants consisted of their publication of the art works of Silpi (water colour paintings and pen and ink drawings on paper) in the form of a Book in two volumes. Only the line drawing on pen and ink (Deities and Temple view) where the subject matter of publication in the defendants' magazine under title "Thennattj Selvangal"
during the period 1948 - 1967, but the water colour paintings of Deities, are not the subject matter of the above-said publication in Ananda vikadan under the title "Thennattu Selvangal" and this being so, in publishing the infringing books, the defendants have included both water colour paintings and line drawings on pen and ink of Silpi and they were published without the plaintiff's consent. This Page No.21/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012 act of the defendants amounts to infringement of the plaintiff's copyright in art work of Silpi, of which the plaintiff and his sister are the sole owners. The defendants pleaded that Silpi drew his art work for the publication in Ananda Vikadan magazine and not under a contract for service, but under contract of service, and the same is denied by the plaintiff. Even otherwise, without admitting, the plaintiff contends that if the submission of the defendants is established under Section 17(a) of the Copyright Act, the defendants' right is restricted only to publish in the Ananda Vikadan magazine, which is only a one- time right and the same having been exercised by the defendants during the period 1948 - 1967, but it now stands extinguished. Moreover under Section 17(a) of the Copyright Act, all the other rights in Silpi's art work will vest with Silpi, which means that the further publication, re-production, compilation or any other rights with respect to his art-work, shall vest with Silpi and now his legal heirs, and no one else. It is admitted fact that the great reputation and fame which Silpi earned and enjoyed or the author-ship of the works being the subject matter of the present suit.
9. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that only the nature of contract and the owner-ship of copyright of certain art works of Silpi, are in dispute. In this context, the plaintiff states that the dispute revolves around Section 17(a) of the Copyright Act. The Silpi is undisputably the owner of the copyright in the art work published in the Ananda vikadan magazine under Page No.22/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012 the title "Thennattu Selvangal", which was published during the period between 1948 and 1961 and he only licensed and permitted a one-time publication as mentioned above, under the contract for service. Apart from this, he had never, during his life-time, assigned or licensed his works to any-one else, while the defendants' case falls under Section 17(a) of the Copyright Act. Further, under Section 17(a), the defendants extinguished their right by publication in the Ananda vikadan magazine during 1948 - 1967 and now, all the other rights such as, re-production right, re-printing right, compilation right, etc., as copyright is a bundle of rights, and the same vest only with Silpi and his legal heirs under Section 17(a) and the defendants are not entitled to publish or deal with Silpi's art work. Moreover, the compiling art works of Silpi vest with him only.
10. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submitted that the plaintiff claims copyright in the artistic work of Silpi, on the basis of Section 17 (as quoted above) read with Sections 14(c) and 2(c) of the Copyright, 1957, which, for the purpose of clarity, only Sections 14(c) and 2(c) are extracted hereunder:
"Section 14: Meaning of copyright: For the purposes of this Act, "copyright" means the exclusive right subject to the provisions of this Act, to do or authorise the doing of any of the following acts in respect of a work or any substantial part thereof, namely:--
... .. ..
... .. ...Page No.23/78
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012
(c) in the case of an artistic work--
(i) to reproduce the work in any material form including--
(A) the storing of it in any medium by electronic or other means; or (B) depiction in three-dimensions of a two- dimensional work; or (C) depiction in two-dimensions of a three- dimensional work; or
(ii) to communicate the work to the public;
(iii) to issue copies of the work to the public not being copies already in circulation;
(iv) to include the work in any cinematograph film;
(v) to make any adaptation of the work;
(vi) to do in relation to an adaptation of the work any of the acts specified in relation to the work in sub-clauses (i) to (iv)"
Section 2: Interpretation:
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
.. ..
(c) "artistic work": means--
(i) a painting, a sculpture, a drawing (including a diagram, map, chart or plan), an engraving or a photograph, whether or not any such work possesses artistic quality;
Page No.24/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012
(ii) a work of architecture; and
(iii) any other work of artistic craftsmanship;"
11. Learned counsel further submitted that there is no written agreement between Silpi and the defendants and the plaintiff is only the son of Silpi. It is admitted fact that Silpi drew the said art work (pen and ink line drawings) only for the purpose of publication in Ananda Vikadan magazine during the said period. The plaintiff's sister was examined as P.W.2 supporting the claim of the plaintiff. Further, copyright is purely a creation of the statute and that statutory right devolved upon the Silpi. Ultimately, under Section 16 of the Copyright, there cannot be any claim of copyright outside the scope of the Copyright Act and that there cannot be any claim under common law. Thus, the learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the claim of copyright by the plaintiff in this suit, flows only from Section 17 read with Sections 14(c) and 2(c) of the Copyright Act, which clearly shows that the copyright only vest with Silpi, and now, after the death of Silpi, the plaintiff claims copyright. Though the defendants do not dispute the vesting of the copyright on Silpi and thereafter his daughter (sister of the plaintiff) and the plaintiff being the son of the said Silpi, devolved upon the said copyright, but the claim of the defendants is that they are entitled to the copyright ownership in the pen and ink line drawings of Page No.25/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012 Silpi, published in Ananda vikadan magazine under the said book "Thennattu Selvangal" during 1947 to 1961 under Section 17(a) of the Copyright Act.
Further, the claim of the defendants, is without merit because, on a holistic reading of Section 17(a), it is proved that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought for in this suit. Moreover, on all the other aspects, the author (Silpi) shall be the first owner of the copyright.
12. Thus, according to the plaintiff, it is clear that the other rights, viz., right to bring out a book or a collection of the ark work (collective right) or a compilation of the art work, right to communicate it to the public, etc., all vest with the author Silpi. The claim of the defendants is limited to "publication right"
to publish the said pen and ink line drawings of the artist Silpi under the title "Thennattu Selvangal" in the Ananda Vikadan magazine during the period from 1947 to 1961. Further contention of the learned counsel is that, as provided for under the late half of Section 17(a), all other rights, viz., re-printing right, re- publication right, right to bring a book, right to bring a compilation, right to bring out a collection of art work etc., all vest with the Author (Silpi).
13. While relying on the evidence of D.W.1, learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that there are no records available in the office. Further, D.W.1 also deposed that it is correct to state that Silpi had drawn only for publication in Ananda Vikadan magazine.
14. It is also stated by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the act of Page No.26/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012 the defendants in now publishing a book (two volumes marked as Ex.P-28) amounts to exercising a right to bring a book/collective right/compilation right/re-printing/re-publishing right, which are not conferred on the defendants under Section 17(a), amounting to violation of the copyright now being vested on the plaintiff, as provided for under the first part of Section 17 read with the last two lines of Section 17(a) in particular, and hence, the action of the defendants amount to infringement of copyright under Section 51 entitling the plaintiff to injunctive and ancillary relief under Section 55. Further, the action of the defendants in now 'collecting' all the pen and ink line drawings of artist Silpi and also including water colour paintings of Silpi, which were not published under title, "Thannattu Selvangal" and printing two volumes of it in a book form, amounts to infringement of the copyright now vested in the plaintiff by operation of law. For better appreciation, Sections 51 and 55 of the Copyright Act, are re-produced below:
"Chapter XI Infringement of copyright "Section 51 : When copyright infringed:
Copyright in a work shall be deemed to be infringed--
(a) when any person, without a licence granted by the owner of the copyright or the Registrar of Page No.27/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012 Copyrights under this Act or in contravention of the conditions of a licence so granted or of any condition imposed by a competent authority under this Act--
(i) does anything, the exclusive right to do which is by this Act conferred upon the owner of the copyright; or
(ii) permits for profit any place to be used for the communication of the work to the public where such communication constitutes an infringement of the copyright in the work, unless he was not aware and had no reasonable ground for believing that such communication to the public would be an infringement of copyright; or
(b) when any person--
(i) makes for sale or hire, or sells or lest for hire, or by way of trade displays or offers for sale or hire, or
(ii) distributes either for the purpose of trade or to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright, or
(iii) by way of trade exhibits in public, or
(iv) imports into India, any infringing copies of the work;
PROVIDED that nothing in sub-clause (iv) shall apply to the import of one copy of any work for the private and domestic use of the importer.
Explanation: For the purposes of this section, the reproduction of a literary, dramatic, musical or Page No.28/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012 artistic work in the form of a cinematograph film shall be deemed to be an "infringing copy".
"Section 55: Civil remedies for infringement of copyright: (1) Where copyright in any work has been infringed, the owner of the copyright shall, except as otherwise provided by this Act, be entitled to all such remedies by way of injunction, damages, accounts and otherwise as are or may be conferred by law for the infringement of a right:
PROVIDED that if the defendant proves that at the date of the infringement he was not aware and had no reasonable ground for believing that copyright subsisted in the work, the plaintiff shall not be entitled to any remedy other than an injunction in respect of the infringement and a decree for the whole or part of the profits made by the defendant by the sale of the infringing copies as the court may in the circumstances deem reasonable.
(2) Where, in the case of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, or, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 13, a cinematograph film or sound recording, a name purporting to be that of the author, or the publisher, as the case may be, of that work, appears on copies of the work as published, or, in the case of an artistic work, appeared on the work when it was made, the person whose name so appears Page No.29/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012 or appeared shall, in any proceeding in respect of infringement of copyright in such work, be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to be the author or the publisher of the work, as the case may be.
(3) The costs of all parties in any proceedings in respect of the infringement of copyright shall be in the discretion of the court."
15. As the re-printing right, re-publishing right, right to bring out a book, right to bring out a collection, compilation right of the art work, are all rights comprised of in the bundle of copyright and they vest the plaintiff under Section 17(a) in the last two lines therein. These rights are not covered under Section 17(a) and hence, these rights do not vest with the defendants and on the contrary, they vest with the author Silpi and now, on the plaintiff under Section 17 (first part) and the last two lines of Section 17(a) savings clause.
16. Learned counsel further contended that, even assuming that Silpi was employed by the defendants under a contract of service, as claimed by the defendants, then their right is a "limited publication right" for publication in a particular magazine (Ananda Vikadan magazine) during a period of time. The decision relied on by the defendants in 2004 (1) SCC 126 (Ram Singh and others Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh and others) and AIR 1957 SC 254 Page No.30/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012 (Dharangadhra Chemical Works Limited Vs. State of Saurashtra and others), may not be considered by this Court, as the same is not the line of contest. Further, the decision relied on by the defendants in 2015 (Vol.63) PTC 612 (Bom, eXegesis Infotech (India) Private Limited Vs. another Vs. Medimanaged Insurance Broking Pvt. Ltd.), the plaintiff submits that actually, the same supports the contentions of the plaintiff on Section 17.
17. In the above context, the learned counsel for the plaintiff relied on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2004 (3) SCC 90 (Midas Hygiene Industries (P) Ltd. and another Vs. Sudhir Bhatia and others) for the proposition that in case of infringement of trademark or copyright, an injunction must normally follow. It is also contended that the examples given by the defendants pertaining to Google software and movies, do not get attracted, when the claim of the defendants is only based on Section 17(a) of the Copyright Act, which narrows down only to publication right in newspapers, magazines and periodicals and the right in other works, software and movie are included in Section 17(a).
18. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also stated that the argument of the defendant regarding non-joinder of parties, is not a plea taken in the written statement and no issues also were framed in this suit in that regard. Even otherwise, it is settled law that the copyright infringement suit at the instance of one of the owners of the copyright, is maintainable as a co-owner and all owners Page No.31/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012 need not join in filing the suit and in this regard, learned counsel relied on the decision reported in MANU/GH/0627/2018 (Deepak Kumar Sanyal and others Vs. Naba Kanta Bardolio and others). Moreover, Section 61 of the copyright Act relied on by the defendants, does not apply to the case on hand, because Section 61 pertains only to a copyright infringement suit instituted by an exclusive licensee, which is not a case in this suit.
19. In reference to the submission of the defendants regarding the applicability of Section 57, learned counsel for the plaintiff stated that said provision is not at all attracted in this case, as Section 57 of the Copyright pertains only on invoking of moral rights, which is stated as author's special rights and it gets attracted only when the copyright has been assigned and in this suit, it is undisputed and admitted that there is no assignment of copyright and therefore, the submissions in that context, is not attracted. It is useful to extract Section 57 of the Copyright Act:
20. Further, the learned counsel for the plaintiff relied on the book titled "Copinger and Skone James on Copyright" (15th South-Asian Edition 2008
-Volume-1) by Kevin Garnett, Gillian Davies and Gwilym Harbottle, and the relevant portion of the said book dealing with the scope of such rights generally and particularly "(A). Inter-relationship of rights", reads as follows:
"Copyright as bundle of rights: Copyright gives the copyright owner a bundle of property rights. Thus, the owner has the right to do or to authorise other Page No.32/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012 persons to do the various acts restricted by the copyright law, including, for example inter alia to reproduce, rent out and broadcast the work and to communicate it to the public. The right to control each of these acts is generally exercisable separately. However, these rights may overlap with other rights such as moral rights, so that in a given situation there may be infringement of the right of reproduction as well as of the moral right to be identified as the author. Rarely, the exercise of rights is mutually exclusive, as in the case of the protection given to those original designs which are not protected by copyright but which are protected by means of the separate registered design right described above.
Similarly, where more than one right owner has right , in a work, these rights subsist and may be exercised independently. For example, in relation to a sound recording, separate rights subsist with respect to: (a) the music and lyrics embodied in it; (b) the fixation of the performances recorded on it; and
(c) the sound recording itself. Someone who wishes to exploit the sound recording must, therefore acquire or clear all these separate rights. Any unauthorised exploitation will be actionable by any individual right owner.
Copyright is essentially not a positive but a negative right. Thus, for example, no provision of the Copyright At confers on the owner of copyright in a literary work the right to publish it. The Act gives the owner of the copyright the right to prevent others from doing that which the Act recognises the owner alone has the right to do so. (Ashdown Vs. Telegraph Group Ltd. (2001) EWCA Civ 1142; (2002) Ch.149)."
Further, in support of all his submissions, learned counsel for the plaintiff relied on the following judgmenrs:
(i) MANU/GH/0627/2018 (Deepak Kumar Sanyal and others Vs. Naba Page No.33/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012 Kanta Bardoloi and others); and
(ii) 2004 (3) SCC 90 (Midas Hygiene Industries (P) Ltd., Vs. Sudhir Bhatia and others).
Resultantly, for all the reasons above, learned counsel for the plaintiff prayed to decree the suit on the facts and circumstances of the case.
21. In response to the above submissions, the learned counsel for the defendants stated that the defendants' weekly magazine "Ananda vikadan", which was started in 1928, is a part of Vasan Publications Group and continues to be running successfully for the past 90 years. "Thennattu Selvangal" was a series commenced and published by the defendants in their weekly Ananda vikadan that comprised of a write-up about the Temple, the Gods, Goddesses, etc., in different places, along with an art work of that God/Deity, done by plaintiff's father, was well received by the readers then, in its publications during the period around 1943-1967. The defendants intended to re-publish the same in 2012 not as series, but as a compilation of the composite work, under the same title "Thennattu Selvangal", which has given rise to the present suit by the plaintiff, claiming copyright in his father's work, as a legal heir and thereby, the plaintiff has approached this Court seeking injunctive orders against the defendants from publishing/re-publishing his father's works. In respect of the disputed "Thennattu Selvangal", no water-colouring paintings are covered. Page No.34/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012
22. The defendants' counsel further submitted that there is a fundamental difference in the contentions of the parties to the suit, which forms the crux of the entire suit. As the right attempted to be created and exercised by the plaintiff, is purely imaginary, wishful and non-existent, no document or evidence had been let-in by the plaintiff to support their claim and allegations in the suit, vis-a-vis, the defendants who stand to benefit even from the documents filed by the plaintiff, as well as from the un-controverted pleadings and documents marked before this Court. The two affidavits dated 29.08.2012 voluntarily given by contemporary artists - co-employees - cum - friends of plaintiff's father filed before this Court under Order VIII Rule 1-A of the CPC), along with the written statement to establish that the plaintiff's father was under
employment with the defendants and that therefore, copyright and ownership of his works done during such employment belong/vest only with the defendants and not the plaintiff/legal heir of the defendant's employee late P.M.Srinivasan alias Silpi.
23. Learned counsel also stated that the present suit is based on assumption of right, and without any supporting document or evidence alleging that his father Late P.M.Srinivasan alias Silpi's artistic works for the defendants' magazine Ananda vikadan, were done on "contract for service" basis during the period 1943-1967 and therefore, ownership in respect of copyright in Late P.M.Srinivasan alias Silpi's works, vest with the plaintiff, as his legal heir and not Page No.35/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012 the defendants. On the contrary, the defendants' case is supported by proof, inclusive of the plaintiff's documents marked during the deposition of the witnesses. The plaintiff's father late P.M.Srinivasan alias Silpi, was an employee of the defendants' publication Ananda vikadan during the years 1943-1967 and his works were done on "contract of service/employment" basis and therefore, the defendants are the owners of all the artistic works done by plaintiff's father Late P.M.Srinivasan alias Silpi in course of his employment during the years 1943-1967 and are entitled to use the said artistic works as may be required and/or deemed fit and proper by the defendants in accordance with law.
24. It is further contended that the defendants have no claim over the works done by Late P.M.Srinivasan alias Silpi, after his termination from the defendant's organisation, i.e. after 1967. It is also contended that Late P.M.Srinivasan alias Silpi never claimed ownership or copyright in respect of the work done during his employment against his employer, the first defendant (inclusive of predecessor, Ananda vikadan) at the time of his appointment in 1943 or any time in course of his employment (1943-1967) or his post-retirement while he was alive and till his death (1967-1983). It is an admitted fact by the plaintiff that his father Late P.M.Srinivasan alias Silpi announced another artist Mr.Padmavasan (whose original name is Giridharan, but re-christened by the plaintiff's father as Padmavasan, derived from the plaintiff's mother-Padma and father's name - Vasan) to be his legal heir in the artistic field. Page No.36/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012
25. The defendant's counsel further contended that there is no proof filed by the plaintiff that his father late P.M.Srinivasan alias Silpi licensed his drawings to the defendant's weekly magazine Anada vikadan and was paid a license fee/Royalty as a consideration on a piece work basis. Further, there is also no proof filed by the plaintiff to show that his father was engaged by various reputed publishing companies at various points of time jointly and severally to license his drawings/art works and paintings for use by them; of relevance, there is no proof filed by the plaintiff for the particular period 1943-1967 when the defendants say that the plaintiff's father was in full time employment with the defendants' publication. Moreover, there is also no proof filed by the plaintiff that his father did all his works purely on a "contract for service" basis, with a specific sum paid towards the license fee/Royalty, which was either paid on a monthly basis, which was regular or need-bound, or per work basis, more particularly and of relevance to the present suit, for the period 1943-1967. Further, there is also no proof filed by the plaintiff to show that his father Late P.M.Srinivasan alias Silpi always had the discretion in choosing the work or art, particularly, and of relevance to the present suit, for the period 1943-1967. There is no proof filed by the plaintiff to show that the materials were purchased by his father and that the drawing/painting were done as per his convenience and no one has a say in this, particularly, and of relevance to the present suit, for the period 1943-1967. Further, there is no proof filed by the plaintiff even to Page No.37/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012 show that the first and second defendants/their parent concerns had engaged the services of the plaintiff's father on a 'contract for service' basis and used his drawings/paintings in their publications on a regular basis, for which, he was paid a consideration by way of license fee/Royalty consideration, particularly and of relevance to the present suit, for the period 1943-1967. There is also no proof filed by the plaintiff to show that his father had licensed a one time publication in Ananda Vikadan, a weekly magazine published by the defendants/their predecessor-in-tile, of various pen and ink drawings of his for a license fee/Royalty consideration.
26. Further, the learned counsel contended that the plaintiff's interim application bearing O.A.No.661 of 2012 in C.S.No.522 of 2012 seeking interim injunction against the defendants from publication of Thennattu Selvangal, was dismissed on 09.11.2012 for want of prima-facie case in favour of the plaintiff for grant of ad-interim injunction and it was also observed that the documents filed by the plaintiff in support of his case prima-facie proves the employment of his father Late Silpi, from the years 1948-1961 with the respondents therein. The said order dated 09.11.2012 was also confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in O.S.A.No.446 of 2012 with directions as stated therein. The same situation that existed at the prima-facie stage of the present suit continues to exist even after trial and letting in evidence by both the parties and the trial has rather been confirmed by the truthful stance of the defendants, negating the Page No.38/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012 rights of the plaintiff.
27. Further, from the cross-examination of D.W.3, it is the stand of the defendants that till 1983, drawings of artists from outside, were not published in Ananda vikadan and that only in 1983, the drawings of an outside artist (free lancer), namely Mr.Jeyaraj artist came to be published in Ananda vikadan and it is also clear from the cross-examination of D.W.3 that the Silpi received salary from Ananda vikadan and further, D.W.3 denied that Silpi was not a salaried artist and used to draw on contract for service basis. As an artist, Silpi created all kinds of work for Ananda vikadan during his employment.
28. Learned counsel further contended that the Silp drew according to the requirements of the story article or jokes and not vice-versa and he was not independent and did not have any discretion in choosing his work and pen and materials were given by the defendants. Apart from the title "Thennaatu Selvangal", at the instance of Silpi, "Shetradhanam" was also published in Ananda vikadan magazine for a long period from the year 1948 to 1961 and Silpi's contribution was towards collective work. It is for the plaintiff to prove that the works under dispute, were not done by his father in course of his employment with the defendants under "contract of service" and there was an agreement to the contrary. The plaintiff has miserably failed to substantiate his own case, leave alone rebuttal or converting the defendant's case.
29. Learned counsel further contended that during the cross-examination Page No.39/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012 of P.W.1, he stated that he has not produced any document so far to prove that the defendants approached his father in 1941 and would produce, if necessary, but he has not produced the same. P.W.1 also stated in his cross-examination that he has not produced any written contract of agreement / document so far to prove his father's employment as "contract for service" and would produce, if necessary, but has not produced the same.
30. Learned counsel further stated that the defendants do not claim copyright in respect of the works made by SILPI, either before or after his employment, i.e. either before 1943 or after 1967 and the plaintiff wilfully filed irrelevant documents that are before 1943 and those documents are Royalty payments, receipts, agreements, letters who are from only 1969 onwards. Further, the pleadings of the plaintiff, are based on assumption of rights, baseless allegations and hear-say alone. In cross-examination, P.W.1/plaintiff admitted in cross-examination that he was born in 1946 and he has no direct knowledge about his father's artistic works.
31. Learned counsel further contended that other than the Certificate of Merit issued by the Government School of Arts and Crafts, Madras, to plaintiff's father, dated 04.05.1943, the book compilation brought out in 2012 by the defendants under the title "Thennattu Selvangal", which appeared in parts under the same title weekly in the defendant's Ananda vikadan during plaintiff father's employment in 1943-1967, consisting of the plaintiff's father's artistic Page No.40/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012 works, documents filed by the plaintiff, like Royalty payments, receipts, agreements, letters, which are only from 1969 onwards and predominantly are post-his-father's termination from the defendants' organisation/publication of Ananda vikadan, .i.e. after 1967, which show the 'contract for service' engagements and licensing by the plaintiff's father and by the plaintiff of his father's works and therefore, the same having no bearing or merit worth consideration favouring the plaintiff's case, as they do not pertain to the period of relevance, i.e. 1943-1967, when the plaintiff's father was in employment with the defendants.
32. It is further stated that the sister of the plaintiff was not impleaded as a party to the present suit and she neither supported the case, nor produced any evidence to refute or controvert the statements and evidence submitted by the defendants. Further, it is clear that the defendants have stated in their written statement that the written statement is borne out by several contemporaneous publications made long prior to the present dispute and also from the records. In the present suit, the defendants filed the affidavit of co- employees-cum-friends of the plaintiff's father, who passed away pending the present suit proceedings.
33. One Mr.N.Ravi Prakash, Editor and publisher of the first defendant's magazine "Sakthi Vikadan", deposed as D.W.1, stating that there were no records in the first defendant-Company pertaining to the plaintiff's father's Page No.41/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012 employment and therefore, the publications in various magazines were filed in support of the case of the defendants. He also deposed that the records of the defendants referred and relied upon are on the basis of the art work published in the defendants' magazine and also on the basis of interview given by the plaintiff to other magazines and also the interview given by the other artists about Silpi. On the side of the defendants, the nature of evidence, is as below:-
The written material published since 1947 comprising of inter-alia the book "Thennattu Selvangal", speech and interview of the plaintiff's father, interview of the plaintiff, interviews of the co-employees-cum-friends of plaintiff's father, interview of plaintiff's father's student, who was announced as the heir by the plaintiff's speeches and/or articles that appeared in various publications over a period of time; affidavit of co-employee-cum-friends of the plaintiff's father, viz., late Mr.Gopalan alias Gopulu and Mr.Venkatramani alias Vani, which form part of the written statement documents and examination of witness D.W.1 and D.W.3.
34. The plaintiff has not raised any objections about the news items published in the documents produced by him in the present proceedings because the publications made very good praise, reputation and encomium about his father.
35. Further, it is stated by the learned counsel that the plaintiff's father being an employee with the defendants between 1943-1967 under 'contract of Page No.42/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012 employment', can no longer claim copyright in the works authored by him during the course of employment, as the same will vest in the Proprietor under Section 17(a) of the Copyright Act. The plaintiff had not filed single document or evidence to support the plaintiff's stand that his father Silpi always worked on 'contract for service' basis and his works were licensed to the defendants. Apart from the plaintiff's admission in Ex.P-10 interview about his father being employed in Ananda vikadan for 22 years, the plaintiff's own documents do not support such statement of 'contract for service' which is specifically made solely for the present suit to tarnish the repute and name of the defendants and unduly enrich oneself. Moreover, there is no material on record filed by the plaintiff to controvert any of the statements and documents filed in support thereof under Order VIII Rule 1-A of the CPC by the plaintiff. The letter dated 25.06.1943 written by Mr.Maali to Mr.P.M.Srnivasan/Silpi had been re-produced by eminent writer Mr.Saavi in his article published about the plaintiff's father Silpi, and the same supports the case of the defendants. Further, in Ex.P-25 series, an article was published in the caption "Silpi's Chitranajali" in the publication "Dinamani Sudar Anubandham", dated 03.04.1970, which was marked as Ex.P-30, the father of the plaintiff , i.e. Silpi himself admitted that Sri Vasan had given him papers, pen and opportunity liberally as a King and that he used that paper and became Silpi. The plaintiff admitted that the news item was published when his father had objected for the publication in "Dinamani Sudar". Page No.43/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012 It is also admitted by the plaintiff that on Mr.Maali's recommendation, his father was employed in "Ananda vikadan".
36. The plaintiff further admitted that in the article/Ex.P-29, it is mentioned that, after completion of his course in the Arts College, Silpi joined Ananda Vikadan on the invitation of Mr.Maali. The plaintiff also admitted that in the book published during Tanjore Exhibition, i.e. Ex.P-6 that even when his father, Srinivasan was only a student and his drawings also attracted Mr.Maali, and this connection between Maali and Srinivasan created a chance to serve in Ananda vikadan continuously for 22 years. It is also admitted by the plaintiff that in the book published during the Tanjore exhibition, i.e. in Ex.P-6, it is mentioned that after the plaintiff's father completed the course, he joined Maali and thereby, he worked under the magazine "Ananda vikadan".
37. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the defendants that the plaintiff admitted with reference to Ex.P-7 that "when Silpi was sent by vikadan Office to draw the pictures, they used to give money for his expenses. Hence, Silpi used to stay in the house of the Temple priests and he will not stay in Hotels and not take food in any place. He used to spend conservatively and returned the balance to the office and that the money will not be paid unless a person is an employee. The plaintiff also admitted that with reference to Ex.P-12 article, published in the magazine "Kumudham", issue dated 23.08.2004, about the contents that Maali, recommended about Silpi to Mr.S.S.Vasan for joining Page No.44/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012 him in the Ananda vikadan as an artist in vikadan. The plaintiff also admitted that the same article as in Ex.P-12, which was published in a separate book (and marked as Ex.P-13) with the same paragraph and title. Further, the plaintiff also admitted about his father's reply in an interview, marked as Ex.P-25(m) re- collecting that he has been working in Ananda vikadan from 1941 to 1963. The plaintiff did not deny or rebut in Ex.P-25(R) where his father was paid for great tribute to the second defendant's grand-father Mr.S.S.Vasan for his inspiration and support that enabled him to copy rare artistic pieces of the defendant's heritage.
38. Further, the learned counsel stated that the plaintiff admitted without any objections about the reference to his father in defendant's publication "Deepavali Malar", marked as Ex.D-1, published in 1955 as 'our artist'. Further, the plaintiff admitted without any objection about the reference to his father in the defendant's publication Kshetradhanam-Kadikaasala Shetram, marked as Ex.D-2, published in 1956 as 'our artist Silpi'.
39. Further, it is submitted by the learned counsel that D.W.1 in his cross- examination, clearly stated that Silpi had drawn many drawings and paintings for others, after his retirement from Ananda vikadan and which was not further prodded or rebutted by the plaintiff. Further, D.W.1 in his cross-examination clearly stated that Silpi was working with the defendants from 1943 to 1967, and he was directed to draw the art work and hence, for the said work alone, he Page No.45/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012 does not have any copyright and that, it is with the defendant-Company, which has not been rebutted by the plaintiff.
40. Moreover, it is stated by D.W.1 in his cross-examination that it is correct to state that Silpi had drawn only for publication in Ananda vikadan, inclusive of re-production as well in any of the defendant's magazine. Hence, it is established beyond probabilities that the plaintiff's father did not work with the defendants on 'contract for service' basis during 1943-1967 as alleged by the plaintiff and the art works done by him during such period of exclusive employment with the defendants for publication in the defendants' magazine Ananda vikadan, Thennaattu Selvangal, Kshetradhanam, etc., to cite a few publications, belong solely to the defendants and no one else including the plaintiff and his sister and under such circumstances, as per Section 17 of the Copyright Act, the defendants are the first owner of copyright pertaining to the works of the plaintiff's father, as the employer of the plaintiff's father, under whose instructions and salary, the plaintiff's father late P.M.Srinivasan alias Silpi carried out artistic works for the defendant's magazine during the period 1943 to 1967.
41. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the burden of proof that the copyright vested in the plaintiff's father, is on the plaintiff, who is the person who asserts that copyright vested in him and the burden does not shift on the defendants until the plaintiff proves such right. The learned counsel Page No.46/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012 also relied on Sections 101, 102 and 103 of the Indian Evidence Act. There existed a continuous employer-employee relationship between the plaintiff's father and the defendants for the period 1943-1967, where, the defendants' had control over the activities of the plaintiff's father and they have paid plaintiff's father salary, costs for travel and other expenses. Further, the defendants have provided and supplied stationery and drawing materials including special drawing pens, special brushes, special nib "crow quill" and special drawing paper, named "J Whatman" made in England and sent with him Mr.Vani for assistance, determined the publications and periodicity, organised work and extracted work as required from the plaintiff's father and other employees, had the power to select or dismiss the persons as well as their works, and that the plaintiff's father was grateful to the second defendant's grand-father Late Mr.S.S.Vasan for all inspiration and support given to him.
42. Learned counsel further stated that the reputed artists, who were also contemporaries-colleagues-cum-ex.employees like Late Mr.Gopulu, Mr.Vani, Mr.G.R.Mahadevan alias Maya, have all confirmed about they all working together, employment of plaintiff's father, his nature of work, disbursement of salary by the defendants and other particulars which truthful facts have been wantonly suppressed by the plaintiff before this Court. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the plaintiff's father Late P.M.Srinivasan alias Silpi was fully integrated with the defendant's organisation during about the period 1943-1967 till his Page No.47/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012 termination and did nothing independently on his own during the cited period.
43. Further, the plaintiff admitted in his cross-examination that such agreement has not been produced by him and would produce if necessary, which has not been so far, and therefore, it is submitted that presumption under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, applies under the circumstance for this Court to presume that either the plaintiff does not have any such document or if such document exists and were to be produced, the same would be unfavourable to the case of the plaintiff and that he has suppressed such document from this Court. Further, it is admitted in the pleadings of the plaintiff that his father had not executed any Will as regards any of his art works (drawings or paintings) and none of them have been sold/assigned by his father to anyone during his life-time. What his father never had, cannot be transferred under Will or sold or assigned to anyone.
44. It is further contended by the learned counsel that interpretation of Section 17(a) of the Copyright Act, does not qualify in species in respect of the work and would apply universally to all forms of publication. The publication "Thennattu Selvangal" is a complete literary work inclusive of a content write-up as well as art works jointly and severally vests solely on the defendants. Further, Section 14(a) of the Copyright Act, confers exclusive right to do or authorises the doing of any of the acts in respect of the artistic work or any substantial part thereof, namely to re-produce the work in any material form including storing of Page No.48/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012 it in any medium by electronic means; to issue copies of the work to the public not being copies already in circulation; to perform the work in public or communicate it to the public; to make any cinematograph film or sound recording in respect of the work; to make translation of the work; to make adaptation of the work; and to do in relation to translation or an adaptation of the work, any of the acts specified in relation to work stated above.
45. The defendants' counsel relies on Section 14(c) of the Copyright Act, which confers the exclusive right to do or authorises the doing of any of the acts in respect of the artistic work or any substantial part thereof, namely to re- produce the work in any material form including depiction in three dimensions of a two-dimensional work or two dimensions of three dimensional work; to communicate the work to the public; to issue copies of the work to the public not being copies already in circulation; to include the work in any cinematograph film and to do in relation to an adaptation of the work in any of the acts specified in relation to the works stated above.
46. Learned counsel further stated that in relation to literary work or an artistic work, the conversion of the work into a dramatic work by way of performance in public or otherwise; in relation to literary or dramatic work, any abridgement of the work or any version of the work in which the story or action is conveyed wholly or mainly by means of pictures in a form suitable for re- production in a book, or in a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical and in Page No.49/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012 relation to any work, any use of such work involving its arrangements or alteration. Further, the right to publish includes re-publishing rights as well, unless there is a contract to the contrary. As there is no agreement or document between the plaintiff or his father and the defendants that negates defendants' right to publish or re-publish the works of the plaintiff's father.
47. In support of the above contentions, learned counsel for the defendants rely on the following decisions and prayed to dismiss the suit:
(i) 1957 SCR 152 = AIR 1957 SC 264 (Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. State of Saurashtra);
(ii) 2004 (1) SCC 126 (Ram Singh Vs. Union of India);
(iii) CDJ 1997 BOm HC 34 (Sheth Publishers Vs. Holy Faith International P. Ltd,) and
(iv) 2015 (63) PTC 612 (Exegies Infotech (India) P. Ltd. Vs. Medimanage Insurance Broking P.Ltd.
48. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
49. The case of the plaintiff is that the father of the plaintiff, was a renowned artist popularly known as "Silpi". He excelled in a particular line, namely drawing i.e. drawing in pen and ink of paper, water colour paintings, caricature drawing, story illustrative and jokes. During his studies in the college level, in the year 1941, he was approached to licence his drawing for the weekly Page No.50/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012 magazine Ananda Vikadan. This was a contract for service for which he was paid licence fee/Royalty as consideration on piece-work-basis. He completed his studies in the year 1943 and thereafter, till his death in 1983, he was engaged by various reputed publishing companies at various points of time, jointly and severally, including by the first and third defendants to licence his drawing/art work and paintings for use by them. All these were done purely on a contract for service basis with a specific sum paid towards the license fee/Royalty, which was either paid on a monthly basis (which was regular or need bound) or per work basis. Silpi was always the author and first owner of copyright in all his art works. In creating a work of art (be it a line drawing or a water colour painting or any other form of art), Silpi had always the discretion in choosing the work or art, the location, its view and the manner of drawing and he created his work by physically viewing the object form a self-chosen best view of the same. The materials were purchased by Silpi and the drawing / painting was down as per his convenience, i.e. at any time, day and place of his choice, and no one had a say in this. Silpi's drawings were never imaginative or born out of memory. None of those who engaged his services has any say in the object to be drawn, the view or what, how and where it is to be drawn. He was paid a monetary sum towards licence fee/Royalty as consideration for the works of his choice which he licensed to those who engaged his services. Hence, Silpi was the author and first owner of the copyright in all his art works.
Page No.51/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012
50. During his life-time, Silpi drew or painted the pictures of various Gods, Goddess and Temples from Kanyakumari to Badrinath, over a career spread over more than 50 years and attained great repute and fame. During his life-time, Silpi had drawn more than 5000 drawings (pen and ink on paper), 108 colour paintings, apart from caricatures, story illustration drawings and joke drawings and other drawings. For this purpose of painting the Lord Thirupathi Venkateswara alone, Silpi sent 200 hours (i.e. 5 hours every 40 days) at the sanctum-sanctorum of the Tirumalai Temple. The Silpi had the rare opportunity to bring the pictures of Lord Venateswara at Thirumalai-Tirupathi along with the consort Goddess Padmavathi. His drawings were published during the period from 1948 to 1961. During his life-time or the plaintiff thereafter, have not assigned the copyright in any of these works or any other art works, either to the defendants or to any one else.
51. The defendants are about to come out with a combined publication of the art works of Silpi that were previously published in the weekly magazine Ananda Vikadan, under the tile "Thennattu Selvangal" during the period 1948 to 1961, the copyright which now vests with the plaintiff and his sister, without their consent. The plaintiff also came to know that the defendants are copying, re-producing, printing, selling and distributing the art works of Silpi in their weekly magazine "Sakthi Vikadan" without their permission. The act of the defendants, amounts to infringement of the plaintiff's copyright over the said art Page No.52/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012 works. The plaintiff's sister is a house-wife and does not involve herself with the licensing aspect and related issues, which is being taken care of by the plaintiff.
52. Therefore, the main case of the plaintiff is that his father is the sole proprietor and the author and the first owner of the copyright of all his art work and the defendants have no right to re-print or re-produce the same in the other magazine, except Ananda Vikadan. Therefore, the action of the defendant is nothing but infringement of the plaintiff's copyright.
53. The case of the defendants is that the Silpi was working with the defendants as an employee and his service was contributed as a contract of service and not the contract for service. He was paid for his job, though he individually made all prints, i.e. only during the course of employment and the father of the plaintiff has done all the paintings, drawings, etc. Therefore, when once it is a printing or painting completed are handed over to the defendants who are the proprietor of the works, for which the father of the plaintiff, namely Silpi was paid and he cannot claim as the first owner or proprietor of the above said works and during the life-time, Silpi never claimed ownership to any one of the artistic works done by him. The silpi never executed a Will or transferred the right to either plaintiff or his sister. Since all the works were done by the father of the plaintiff, the nature of the work done by Silpi was contract of service rendered by the Silpi and not the contract for service. Even all the painting materials were supplied by the defendants. Even all the travel expenses and stay Page No.53/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012 and other foods and the accommodation were also spent only by the defendants. Therefore, since the Silpi has done all the works during the contract of service and further, the Silpi himself has not claimed the ownership during his life-time, and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to get the relief as sought for and the defendants have not infringed the right of either Silpi or the plaintiff. Since the defendants are the publisher and is owner of the trade mark and even Section 17(a) of the Copyright Act is clear and therefore, in the above circumstances, since the defendants are the owner of the caricature of Silpi and hence, as the owner of the copyright, they are entitled to publish or re-produce, as the case may be. The plaintiff has no right or locus-standi to question the same. The suit itself is not maintainable without any right and the plaintiff has filed the suit. The plaintiff's case, even otherwise, has only the license was given to him and that can be published in the Ananda Vikadan magazine alone and not the other magazine. Now, the defendants have re-produced the copyright even in their sister concern and the defendants, are not entitled and conveying to infringe the copyright.
54. Issue Nos.3 and 4:
(iii) Whether the father of the plaintiff, Mr.Silpi was employee of Ananda vikadan from the year around 1943 till 1967 ?
(iv) Whether the works "Thennattu Selvangal" comprising Art work and write-up, were created for publication in Ananda vikadan magazine from 1948 to 1961 during the employment of Mr.Silpi with Anada Vikadan ?
According to the plaintiff, the father of the plaintiff was known as "Silpi". Page No.54/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012 During his life-time, he had drawn more than 5,000 drawings with pen and ink on paper and 108 colour paintings of Deities of Thennattu Selvangal famous Indian Temple and more that 400 other water colour paintings, apart from caricature, story illustration drawings relating to the jokes during his life-time. Thereafter, the plaintiff and his sister had not assigned there copyright to anyone, more so, the defendants. The only line of drawing in pen and ink, on the subject matter of publication in the defendants' magazine under title "Thennattu Selvangal" during the period from 1948 to 1961, but the water colour paintings of Deities are not the subject matter of the above said publication in Ananda Vikadan under the title "Thennattu Selvanal". This being so, while publishing the infringed books, the defendants have included both the water colour paintings of Deities and the line drawings of pen and ink of Silpi, and they have published without the consent of the plaintiff. The act of the defendants amount to infringement of the plaintiff's copyright in the art work of Silpi, of which, the plaintiff and his sister are the sole owners. The defendants pleaded that Silpi drew his art work for publication in the Ananda Vikadan magazine and not under the contract for service, but under the contract of service. There is no contract for service and it was done only by the plaintiff and the same is denied by the defendants. Even otherwise, without admitting that the plaintiff contends that if the service of the defendants is established under Section 17(a) of the Copyright Act, the defendants' right is restricted only with Page No.55/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012 publication in the Ananda Vikadan magazine and it is only one-time right and the same having been excelled by the defendants during the period 1948-1961, but it now stands extinguished. Moreover, under Section 17(a) of the Copyright Act, all the other rights in the Silpi's art work basis, will vest with the Silpi, which means that the further publication, re-production, compilation or any other rights with respect to his art work, shall vest with Silpi and now his legal heirs, and no one else. The great reputation and name which Silpi earned and enjoyed or the author-ship of the works being the subject matter of the present suit.
55. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that the nature of the contract and the ownership of copyright of certain art works of the Silpi, are in dispute. The Silpi is undisputably the owner of the copyright in the art work published in the Ananda vikadan magazine under the title "Thennattu Selvangal", which was published during the period between 1948 and 1961 and he only licensed and permitted a one-time publication, under the contract for service. Apart from this, he had never, during his life-time, assigned or licensed his works to any-one else, while the defendant's case falls under Section 17(a) of the Copyright Act. Further, under Section 17(a), the defendants extinguished their right by publication in the Ananda Vikadan magazine during 1948-1961 and now, all the other rights such as re-production right, re-printing right, compilation right, etc., as copyright is a bundle of rights, and the same vest only with Silpi and his legal heirs under Section 17(a) and the defendants are not Page No.56/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012 entitled to publish or deal with Silpi's art work. Moreover, the compiling art works of Silpi vest with him only. The plaintiff claims copyright in the artistic work of Silpi, on the basis of Section 17 read with Sections 14(c) and 2(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957.
56. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that there is no written agreement between Silpi and the defendants and the plaintiff is only the son of Silpi. It is admitted fact that Silpi drew the said art work (pen and ink line drawings) only for the purpose of publication in Ananda Vikadan magazine during the said period. The plaintiff's sister was examined as P.W.2, supporting the claim of the plaintiff. The copyright is purely a creation of the statute and that statutory right devolved upon the Silpi. Ultimately, under Section 16 of the Copyright Act, there cannot be any claim of copyright outside the scope of the Copyright Act and there cannot be any claim of copyright outside the scope of the Copyright Act and that there cannot be any claim under common law. Thus, the claim of copyright by the plaintiff in this suit, flows only from Section 17 read with Sections 14(c) and 2(c) of the Copyright Act, which clearly shows that the copyright only vest with Silpi, and now, after the death of Silpi, the plaintiff claims copyright. The plaintiff being the son of Silpi, devolved upon the said copyright, but the claim of the defendants is that they are entitled to the copyright ownership in the pen and ink line drawings of Silpi, published in Ananda Vikadan magazine under the said book "Thennattu Selvangal" during Page No.57/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012 1947 to 1961 under Section 17(a) of the Copyright Act. The claim of the defendants, is without merit, because, on a holistic reading of Section 17(a) of the Copyright Act, it is proved that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought for in this suit.
57. It is clear that the other rights, viz., right to bring out a book or a collection of the art work (collective right) or a compilation of the art work, right to communicate it to the public, etc., all vest with the author Silpi. Further, the claim of the defendants is limited to "publication right" to publish the said pen and ink line drawings of the artist Silpi under the title "Thennattu Selvangal" in the Ananda vikadan magazine during the period from 1947 to 1961.
58. There are no records available in the office of the defendants and D.W.1 also deposed that it is correct to state that Silpi had drawn only for publication in the Ananda Vikadan magazine. Therefore, the main contention of the plaintiff is that the art work of the Silpi is done by the Silpi for the contract for service and not contract of service. Even assuming that the Silpi was an employed by the defendants under contract of service as claimed by the defendants, then their right is limited to publish in a particular magazine during the period of time. Therefore, the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs are applicable to the facts of the present case. The case of the defendants in this regard is that the defendants' weekly magazine Ananda Vikadan, which was started in 1928 is a part of Vasan publication group and Page No.58/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012 continues to be running successfully for the past 90 years. "Thennattu Selvangal" was a series commenced and published by the defendants in their weekly Ananda Vikadan that comprised of a write-up about the Temple, the Gods, the Goddesses, etc., in different places, along with an art work of that God/Deity done by the plaintiff's father, was well received by the readers then, in its publications during the period around 1943-1967. The defendants intended to re-publish the same in 2012 not as series, but as a compilation of the composite work under the same title "Thennattu Selvangal" which has given rise to the present suit by the plaintiff, claiming copyright in his father's work, as a legal heir and thereby, the plaintiff has approached this Court seeking injunctive orders against the defendants from publishing/re-publishing his father's work. In respect of the disputed "Thennattu Selvangal", no water-colouring paintings are covered.
59. Further, there is a fundamental difference in the contentions of the parties to the suit, which forms the crux of the entire suit. As the right attempted to be created and exercised by the plaintiff, is purely imaginary, wishful and non-existent, no document or evidence has been let-in by the plaintiff to support their claim and allegations in the suit, vis-a-vis the defendants who stand to the benefit even from the documents filed by the plaintiff as well as from the un- controverted pleadings and documents marked before this Court.
60. The suit is only based on assumption of right and without any Page No.59/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012 supporting documents or evidence alleging that his father late P.M.Srinivasan/Silpi's artistic works for the defendants' magazine "Ananda Vikadan" were done on 'contract for service' basis during the period 1943-1967 and therefore, the ownership in respect of the copyright in Late P.M.Srinivasan alias Silpi's work, vest with the plaintiff, as his legal heir and not the defendants. Silpi was an employee of the defendants' publication Ananda Vikadan during the years 1943-1967 and his works were done on "contract of service/employment" basis and therefore, the defendants are the owners of all the artistic works done by plaintiff's father Silpi in the course of his employment during the years 1943-1967 and are entitled to use the said artistic works as may be required and/or deemed fit and proper by the defendants in accordance with law.
61. Further, the defendants have no claim over the works done by Silpi, after his termination from the defendant's organisation, i.e. after 1967. The Silpi never claimed ownership or copyright in respect of the work done during his employment against his employer, the first defendant (inclusive of predecessor, Ananda vikadan) at the time of his appointment in 1943 or any time in course of his employment (1943-1967) or his post-retirement while he was alive and till his death (1967-1983). It is admitted by the plaintiff that his father Silpi announced the artist Mr.Padmavasan (whose original name is Giridharan, but re-christened by the plaintiff's father as Padmavasan, derived from the plaintiff's mother- Page No.60/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012 Padma and the father's name-Vasan) to be his legal heir in the artistic field.
62. There is no proof filed by the plaintiff to show that his father Silpi licensed his drawings to the defendant's weekly magazine Ananda vikadan and was paid licence/Royalty as a consideration on a piece work basis. There is also no proof filed by the plaintiff to show that his father Silpi was engaged by various reputed publishing companies at various points of time, jointly or severally to licence his drawings/art works and paintings for use by them; of relevance, there is also no proof filed by the plaintiff for the particular period 1943-1967, when the defendants say that the father was in full time employment with the defendants' publication. There is also no proof filed by the plaintiff that his father did all his works purely on a "contract for service" basis, with a specific sum paid towards the licence fee/Royalty, which was either paid on a monthly basis, which was regular or need-bound, or per work basis, more particularly and of relevance to the present suit, for the period 1943-1967. There is also no proof filed by the plaintiff to show that his father Silpi always had the discretion in choosing the work or art, particularly and of relevance to the present suit, for the period 1943-1967. There is no proof filed by the plaintiff to show that the materials were purchased by his father and that the drawing/painting were done as per his convenience and no one has a say in this, particularly, and of relevance to the present suit, for the period 1943-1967. There is no proof filed by the plaintiff even to show that defendants had engaged the services of the Page No.61/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012 plaintiff's father on a 'contract for service' basis and use his drawings/paintings in their publications on a regular basis, for which he was paid by way of licence/Royalty consideration, particularly and of relevance to the present suit, for the period 1943-1967. When the defendants are disputing the above averments of the plaintiff and also the evidence, it is the bounden duty of the plaintiff to prove the same.
63. It is settled proposition of law that the claim of the plaintiff must be pleaded and the same must be proved by way of evidence, either oral or documentary. Admittedly, the father of the plaintiff was working with the defendants between 1943 and 1967 and he retired from the service from the defendants in 1967 and thereafter, he died only in 1983. Till 1983, the date of death of the father of the plaintiff, he never claimed as a proprietorship or ownership of the copyright.
64. It is the specific case of the defendants that the plaintiff's father was in exclusive and full time employment of the magazine Ananda Vikadan magazine from around 1943-1967 without break till his retirement and he did not draw or work for any other magazine or publisher during his period for his financial need/own account. Even during the cross-examination of D.W.3, it is the stand of the defendants that till 1983, drawings of artists from outside, were not published in Ananda vikadan and that only in 1983, the drawings of an outside artist (free lancer), namely Mr.Jeyaraj artist came to be published in Page No.62/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012 Ananda Vikadan and it is also clear from the cross-examination of D.W.3 that Silpi received salary from Ananda vikadan and further, D.W.3 denied that Silpi was not a salaried artist and used to draw on "contract for service" basis. As an artist, Silpi created all kinds of work for Ananda vikadan during his employment.
65. Therefore, when the plaintiff has specific case that the father of the plaintiff, i.e. Silpi was doing all the works like caricature works, only during the "contract for service" and not "contract of service". It is also specifically stated that during the time he was doing all the works for other magazines also and it is only the discretion of him, and the same was denied by the defendants stating that the plaintiff 's father - Silpi, was only doing "contract of service" during his employment. It is the duty of the plaintiff to prove that Silpi was doing all the related works, apart from related works thereunder. The Silpi was also doing works in the other magazines also, apart from Ananda Vikadan, which was denied by the defendants and it is the duty of the plaintiff to establish that his father-Silpi was also rendering only "contract for service" and not "contract of service". Further the plaintiff has admitted that his father/Silpi retired from his service in the year 1967, and if at all the plaintiff's father's service was 'contract for service' and there cannot be any retirement from his service.
66. Therefore, on a reading of the entire materials and even the oral evidence, more particularly, in the evidence of D.W.3, who was also working along with Silpi, he deposed that he knows Silpi. Thus, it is clear that both the Page No.63/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012 defendants and plaintiff agreed that he was doing art works / paintings, etc., for the Ananda Vikadan magazine. Even P.W.1 during his cross-examination, admitted that there was no written contract/agreement to show that Silpi was doing 'contract for service'. In order to prove as to whether the service rendered by Silpi was only 'contract for service' and not 'contract of service', the plaintiff has not produced any relevant document. Hence, this Court comes to the conclusion that Silpi was doing only 'contract of service', as the Silpi was doing full-time work in the Ananda Vikadan magazine and he retired from service in the year of 1967. Issue Nos.3 and 4 and the additional issue No.1 in this suit, are answered accordingly.
Issue No.6 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim copyright ownership in the published work "Thennattu Selvangal":-
67. Since already this Court held that Silpi was an employee of the Ananda Vikadan magazine from 1943 to 1967 and the works relating to Thennaatu Selvangal comprising of art works, which were created for publication in the Ananda Vikadan magazine (from 1948 to 1961) during the employment of Silpi in Ananda Vikadan, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim copyright ownership in the publishing works of Thennattu Selvangal. Issue No.6 is answered accordingly.
68. Issue No.5 and additional issue Nos.2, 3 and 4:
Issue No.5 : Whether the publisher is the owner of the published work Page No.64/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012 "Thennattu Selvangal", in view of Section 17 of the Copyright Act ?
Additional Issue Nos.2, 3 and 4:
(ii) Whether the defendants' claim of copyright is restricted under Section 17(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957 to publication of Silpi's art work in Ananda Vikadan magazine alone during the years 1948 to 1967 or it extends to subsequent publication in Ananda Vikadan magazine over later years ?
(iii) Whether the defendants' claim of copyright is restricted under Section 17(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957 to publication of Silpi's art work in Ananda Vikadan magazine alone during the years 1948 to 1967 or it extends to subsequent publication in Ananda Vikadan magazine, subsequent publications in other magazines of the defendants, books or as a compilation, over later years ?
(iv) What are the other respects of copyright that Author Silpi is now entitled to under Section 17(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957 ?
Since this Court already held that the plaintiff has not proved that the works done by the father of the plaintiffs, the title Thennattu Selvangal was not 'contract for service', i.e. during the employment with the Ananda Vikadan from 1943 to 1967, in view of Section 17(a) of the Copyright Act and the defendants who are the publishers as the owner of the copyright under the Copyright Act. In this context, Section 17(a) of the Copyright Act reads as follows:
Chapter IV: Ownership of copyright and the rights of the owner:
Page No.65/78
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012 Section 17: First owner of copyright: Subject to the provisions of this Act, the author of a work shall be the first owner of the copyright therein:
Provided that--
(a) in the case of a literary, dramatic or artistic work made by the author in the course of his employment by the proprietor of a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical under a contract of service or apprenticeship, for the purpose of publication in a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical, the said proprietor shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright in the work insofar as the copyright relates to the publication of the work in any newspaper, magazine or similar periodical, or to the reproduction of the work for the purpose of its being so published, but in all other respects the author shall be the first owner of the copyright in the work;"
69. Therefore, the publisher in this case has to establish that the defendants are the first owners of the copyright in question. It is already held that the defendants proved that the Silpi was under the employment of the defendants and his service during the employment was 'contract of service'. The defendants are the first owner of the copyright work and even otherwise, there is no written contract or contract to the contrary, to show that the work of Page No.66/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012 the Silpi was done only for the purpose of Ananda Vikadan alone, and therefore, the right of the defendants is restricted only to publish in the Ananda Vikadan alone and not in other respects. When once it is held that the employment of the father of the plaintiff, was not "contract for service" and it is only 'contract of service', during the course of employment in Ananda Vikadan as publisher, the defendants are the owners of the title "Thennattu Selvangal" and the defendants can publish the same in their magazine or in the sister or allied magazine. The plaintiff cannot restrict that the defendants are only to publish the title in question, i.e. "Thennatt Selvangal" in the Ananda Vikadan magazine alone. As already held that Silpi was only working as employee in the said magazine between 1943 and 1967, and thereafter, he got retired from service in the said magazine and he died subsequently and after his retirement till his death in 1983, he never claimed any ownership or any copyright. Further, between 1948 and 1967, he was only working in Ananda Vikadan and there was no sister concern to the said Ananda Vikadan. Therefore, the contentions of the plaintiff that even assuming that the defendants are claiming ownership in the title "Thennattu Selvangal", the copyright is only restricted to as per the provisions of Section 17(a) of the Copyright Act, extracted above. The art work alone will not confer the ownership, in reference to Section 17(a) of the Copyright Act. When once it is to be held that the publishers/defendants alone are the ownership of the copyright, who have printed his drawings in art work, Page No.67/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012 The publication of art and the claim of the defendants herein in respect of the copyright under dispute in this case, will confer ownership only on the defendants. In these circumstances, it is the defendants alone who are entitled to claim the ownership in respect of the art works of the Silpi. Issue No.5 and additional issue Nos.3 and 4 are answered accordingly.
70. There is no evidence (oral and documentary) to show that during the period 1948-1961, the Silpi was doing similar work or service to other organisations or other persons other than the Ananda Vikadan magazine, and therefore, there is no material to show that the plaintiff was not working in 1948-1967 with the Ananda Vikadan alone. Hence, during the relevant period, he had drawn all the art works as stated above and he was doing the service only for the defendants' Ananda Vikadan' magazine and during the course of employment which is for 'contract of service' and not 'contract for service'.
71. For easy reference, contract of service Vs. contract of service, are distinguished as below:
Contract of service is an agreement between an employer and employee. In contract for service, an independent contractor, such as a self-employed person or vendor, is engaged for a fee to carry out an assignment or project. The following table shows the difference between 'contract of service' and 'contract for service' :
Page No.68/78
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012 Contract of service Contract for service Has an employer-employee Has a client-contractor type of relationship relationship Employee does business for the Contractor carries out business employer on their own account May be covered by the Not covered by the Employment Employment Act Act includes terms of employment Statutory benefits do not apply such as working hours, leave benefits, etc. It is only illustrative and not exhaustive.
72. Therefore, there is no material to show that Silpi was doing contract for service and admittedly, the Silpi was doing work with the defendants for publication of Ananda Vikadan and during his employment or subsequent to the employment till the death, and he never claimed the ownership and right and title in respect of "Thennaatu Selvangal" or any other works and also he has not assigned or produced any art and he has not conveyed any of the title to the plaintiff like a Will or any testamentary succession in the absence of the same, the plaintiff claims that his father Silpi was the owner in respect of the works done by him. Therefore, in the absence of any document or in the absence of any contract to the contrary, the plaintiff cannot claim any right, however the title "Thennaatu Selvangal". Admittedly, all the works done by Silpi between 1943-1961. During that period, he never worked for any other Company or any other magazine and he was doing all the works during his employment only to Page No.69/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012 the 'Ananda Vikadan'. Even Section 17(a) of the Copyright, the Silip has to be treated as he was working an employee only, even though he did all works of art. There is employer-employee relationship between Silpi and the defendants. The organisation dealing with "Thennaatu Selvangal" denotes that he is only an employee working under the publication of magazine Ananda Vikatan and the said magazine is the owner of all art works performed by Silpi. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief sought for in the present suit. Issue No.V is answered accordingly.
73. Issue Nos.1 and 2: Since already this Court held that either Silpi or the plaintiff are the owner of the copyright title "Thennattu Selvangal", and it was held that the art works were done during the employment of "contract of service" and therefore, the right to publish includes re-publishing right also as well, unless there is contract to the contrary and as there is no agreement or document between the plaintiff or his father/Silpi and the defendants, that negates the defendant's right to publish/re-publish the works of the Silpi (plaintiff's father). The decisions relied upon by the defendants, are squarely applicable to the case on hand, whereas the decisions relied upon by the plaintiff's counsel are not applicable and they are distinguishable on facts and circumstances of the present suit. Issue Nos. 1 and 2 are answered in the above terms.
74. It is settled proposition of law that the plaintiff has to prove his case Page No.70/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012 and he has to stand on his own legs by pleadings and evidence and the plaintiff cannot take the advantage/loop-holes left by the defendants.
75. In the case on hand, this Court finds that the plaintiff has not substantiated his claim by producing necessary oral and documentary evidence. In the case on hand, the defendants have established their right, especially through D.W.3's evidence. The plaintiff has not even controverted the evidence of D.W.3. This Court finds that the plaintiff has not proved his case and the defendants have proved their case and hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed on that score also. There is no material produced by the plaintiff in support of their case.
76. Further, there is no material produced by the plaintiff in support of his claim. There is also no proof to show that during the relevant period, the defendants had paid Silpi for the individual works done by the plaintiff. Even though the defendants case is that the Silpi was working in their organisation, there is no material produced by the plaintiff in support of his stand that Silpi was working in the so-called magazine "Ananda Vikadan" on contract for service. Except the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, there is no acceptable evidence produced by the plaintiff in support of his case, be it oral or documentary. Publishing/re- publishing had been done only by the magazine "Ananda Vikadan" and only it is the discretion of the defendants to publish any article. But the defendants have established that admittedly during the period he was working in Ananda Vikadan Page No.71/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012 and for the work, the Silpi was paid till his retirement in the said magazine, without any interruption or any work and he was working as an employee in the said magazine and he had been doing general art also and more so, the Silpi was continuously doing work only on payment basis. After retirement also, Silpi has not claimed any copyright during his life-time. Even otherwise, there is no express contract that the work of the Silpi has to be published only in Ananda Vikadan and any other magazine. Further, Silpi has not claimed any ownership right during the Silpi's life-time. As the defendants have established that they are the owner of the work and the defendants are the first owner of all the art works done by him.
77. Remaining issues/additional issues are answered in the above terms.
78. Thus, for the reasons stated above, the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove his case. Accordingly, the suit is dismissed. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties have to bear their own respective costs.
29.07.2024 (1/2) Index :Yes/no Speaking Order: Yes/no Neutral case citation: Yes/no cs List of witnesses examined on the side of plaintiffs:
Page No.72/78
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012 P.W.1 - S.Mahalilngam (plaintiff) P.W.2 - R.Sarada List of Documents marked on the side of plaintiff:
Ex.No. Dated Description of the exhibit Photocopy of merit certificate issued by Principal P-1 04.05.1943
- The art drawings of the plaintiffs father by pen and ink in P-2 the name of "Thennattu Selvangal" in Part-I P-3 - The art drawings of the plaintiff's father by pen and ink in the name of "Thennattu Selvangal" in Part-II P-4 - The art drawings of the plaintiff's father by pen and ink in the name of "Thennattu Selvangal" in Part-III P-5 10.01.1983 Photocopy of the Death Certificate of the plaintiff's father P.M.Sreenivasan alias Silpi who died on 10.01.1983, issued by Assistant Health Officer, Corporation of Chennai. P-6 - Original book titled "Silpi--The Great Artist" released during World Tamil Conference at Tanjore conducted by Government of Tamil Nadu P-7 - Photocopy of the article about Artist Silpi written by Artist Gopulu published in pages 92-93 in Vikatan Pavala Vizha Malar 1926-2002 P-8 - Original book titled "Poojyasri Mahaswamigal Varalaru"-Part I , published by Alliance Publications P-9 - Original book titled "Poojyasri Mahaswamigal Varalaru -
Part II , published by Alliance Publications P-10 27.05.2023 Article and life of artist Silpi written by the plaintiff in pages 97-103 in a weekly magazine "Kumutham Junction"
P-11 09.04.2004 Photocopy of the water colour painting of the plaintiff's father Silpi published in the magazine "Aval Vikatan"
P-12 23.08.2004 Original magazine "Kumutham" in which an article is published about the plaintiff's father Silip in pages 80-85 P-13 - Original book titled as "Thalai Nimirndha Tamizhargal"
Part-II, published by Kumutham Publications in which an Page No.73/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012 Ex.No. Dated Description of the exhibit article is published about the plaintiff's father Silpi at pages 135 to 137 P-14 - Original book titled as "Arthamulla Hindu Madham: written by Kannadhasan P-15 - Original book titled as "Tamil Kadavul" written by Vali. P-16 20.06.2010 Original magazine "Dinamani Kathir" in which at pages 8 to 12, plaintiff's father pencil drawings are published P-17 - Original calendars of the year 2012 in which the water colour paintings of the plaintiff's father are printed P-18 - Original calendars of the year 2012 in which the pen and ink drawings of the plaintiff's father are printed P-19 26.06.2012 Original magazine "Sakthi Vikatan" in which at pages 54 to 57 of the plaintiff's father's works are published P-20 01.08.2012 Original weekly magazine "Anandha Vikatan" in which an advertisement at page 61 is published stating printing and publication of Silp's artwork in a book form as in "thennatu Selvangal"
P-21 - Price list book of "Vikata Prasuram" in which at last page the said advertisement is again published P-22 27.07.2012 Office copy of the handwritten letter written by the plaintiff to the second defendant alaong with photocopy of proof of delivery and a typed copy of the handwritten letter P-23 30.07.2012 Office copy of the handwritten letter written by the plaintiff to the second defendant along with the photocopy of proof of delivery and a typed copy of the handwritten letter P-24 - Photocopies of license fee/Royalty payment receipts/letter/agreements from 1964 onwards P-25 - Photocopies of the articles and write-ups about the plaintiff's father Silpi P-26 - Ex.P-26 (A) and (B) are the photocopy of the art works of the plaintiff's father. Ex.P-26(C) is the photocopy of the article about plaintiff's father (marked after comparing with original). Ex.P-26(D) is the extract from the Google search about the plaintiff's father's art work Page No.74/78 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012 Ex.No. Dated Description of the exhibit P-27 - The collection of Silpi drawings of Kapaleeswarar Temple at Madras, Natarajar at Gangai Konda Choizhapuram, Meenatchi Amman Kalyanam at Madurai, Garudzhvar at Suchindram, 100 pillar Hall at Kanchipuram are marked as Ex.P-27 series (a) to (e) P-28 - In the article annexed to Ex.P-25 (page No.224) , it is stated that Silpi worked as drawing artist from 1941 to 1963 for 22 years.
P-29 23.01.1983 In another article published on 23.01.1983 in the magazine "Idayam Pesugirathu" written by Mr.Manian has stated that when he went for employment in Anandha Vikatan office, he wanted to meet two artists, namely Mr.Gopulu and Mr.Silpi P-30 03.04.1970 In page No.215 of Ex.P-25 (series), an article published in the caption "Silpi's Chitraanjali" in Dinamani Sudar Anunandham P-31 15.03.1943 The post card shown to the plaintiff P-32 10.11.2015 Sakthi Vikadan Magazine in which an article / advertisement about Silpi's art works is published P-33 11.01.2023 The copy of the e-mail letter dated 11.01.2023 sent to 6- e.mail IDs pertaining to the defendants List of witnesses examined on the side of defendants:
DW1 - N.Raviprakash DW2 - Janaki 5 DW3 - G.R.Mahadevan @ Maya List of documents marked on the side of defendants:
Ex.No. Dated Description of the exhibit
D.1 - Title Kshetharadanam published in Anantha Vikadan during
1955
D.2 - Title Kshetharadanam published in Anantha Vikadan during
1955
D.3 - Original authorisation letter to depose evidence in this case
Page No.75/78
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012
Ex.No. Dated Description of the exhibit
on behalf of the 1st defendant's Company
D.4 - Photocopy of the article and sketch of the series "Thennatu
Selvangal
D.5 Photocopy of the artistic work of Silpi published in Ananda
Vikatan magazine
D.6 - Photocopy of the artistic work of Silpi published in Ananda
Vikatan magazine
D.7 - Photocopy of the artistic work of Silpi published in Ananda
Vikatan magazine
D.8 - Photocopy of the artistic work of Silpi published in Ananda
Vikatan magazine
D.9 - Photocopy of the artistic work of Silpi published in Ananda
Vikatan magazine
D.10 - Photocopy of the artistic work of Silpi published in Ananda
Vikatan magazine
D.11 - Photocopy of the artistic work of Silpi published in Ananda
Vikatan magazine
D.12 - Photocopy of the interview given by Artist Gopulu about
the employment of Silpi
D.13 - Photocopy of the article written by Padmavasan about Silpi
D14 - Photocopy of the interview given by the plaintiff about his
father's employment
D.15 - Photocopy of the article published in Kumdham
D.16 - Photocopy of the news item and speech made by Silpi and
published in Dinamani
D.17 - Photocopy of the article published
D.18 - Photocopy of the article published in Ananda Vikatan
D.19 - Photocopy of the write-up by Mr.Manian published in
Idhayam Pesukiradu about artist Silpi
D.20 - Photocopy of the article about Silpi published Manjari
D.21 - Photocopy of the article about Silpi
D.22 - Photocopy of the article about Silpi written by Saavi
Page No.76/78
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012
Ex.No. Dated Description of the exhibit
D.23 - Photocopy of the speech made by Silpi and published in
"Evening Star"
D.24 - Interview of Vani @ Venkataramni published in Deepavali
Malar in Ananda Vikatan
cs
29.07.2024
(2/2)
P.VELMURUGAN, J
cs
Pre-delivery judgment
in C.S.(Comm.Div)No.522 of 2012
Page No.77/78
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.(Comm.Div).No.522 of 2012
Judgment delivered on
29.07.2024
Page No.78/78
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis