Madras High Court
Shuddhananda Yoga Samaj vs Rajeswari Book Shop on 24 April, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 MAD 231
Author: M.Sundar
Bench: M.Sundar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 24.04.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SUNDAR
A.S.(MD).No.48 of 2006
and
M.P.(MD).No.2365 of 2006
Shuddhananda Yoga Samaj,
Regd. Soceity,
Shuddhananda Nagar,
Sozhapuram, Sivagangai Taluk,
Sivagangai District,
Rep. by its Secretary. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Rajeswari Book Shop,
Rep. by its Proprietor,
Muthukrishnan Street,
Near Pandi Bazar,
Thyagaraya Nagar, Chennai ? 600 017.
2.Thamizhini (Publishers),
Rep. by its Proprietor,
342, T.T.K. Road,
Royapettah, Chennai ? 14. ... Respondents
PRAYER: First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code,
praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 11.11.2005 made in
O.S.No.2 of 2003, on the file of District Court, Sivaganga and allow this
appeal.
!For Appellant : Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan
^For Respondents : No appearance
:JUDGMENT
This regular first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (?CPC? for brevity), originates from and arises out of a suit being O.S.No.2 of 2003, on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge's Court, Sivagangai. 'Principal District and Sessions Judge's Court, Sivagangai' shall hereinafter be referred to as 'trial Court' for the sake of convenience and clarity.
2.Unsuccessful plaintiff in the trial Court is the appellant before me.
3.Plaintiff is a registered Society. Plaintiff society was founded by one Yogi Shuddhananda Bharathi. These facts unfurl from the pleadings in the trial Court.
4.It is the case of the plaintiff society that Yogi Shuddhananda Bharathi, is the author of several literary works and he bequeathed all the rights in his literary works to the plaintiff society founded by him under a Will dated 14.10.1981, which was probated by the same trial Court in separate probate proceedings and copyright in some of his literary works have been infringed by the two defendants in the trial Court.
5.Predicated on the above ground, plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit in O.S.No.2 of 2003, on the file of the trial Court under Section 55 of the Copyright Act, 1957, (14 of 1957), which shall hereinafter be referred to as 'Copyright Act', for the sake of convenience and clarity.
6.Predicated on the above ground, plaintiff laid prayers for damages against the two defendants. To be noted, damages claimed is Rs.10,000/- from each of the two defendants.
7.There is also an injunction prayer, seeking injunction against the defendants restraining them from publishing all or any of the works of Yogi Shuddhananda Bharathi without obtaining permission from plaintiff society.
8.After full contest and trial, the suit came to be dismissed by the trial Court in and by judgment and decree dated 11.11.2005. Instant first appeal under Section 96 CPC has been filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff in this Court, on 22.03.2006.
9.Before I set out to deal with this appeal, it is to be noted that defendants 1 and 2 in the trial Court have been arrayed as respondents 1 and 2 in this regular first appeal before me. However, respondent No.1 ie., Defendant No.1 in the trial Court was exonerated in the trial Court itself. Therefore, respondent No.1 has been so arrayed only because Respondent No.1 was Defendant No.1 in the trial Court.
10.In the light of the above scenario, this first appeal is essentially against Respondent No.2 only. This leaves us with only one literary work and copyright in the same. That literary work is a book titled 'Maha Kavi Dhante'. Aforesaid Yogi Shuddhananda Bharathi is the author of the book. I am informed that Dhante is a French poet.
11.Further to be noted, respondent No.2 is a publisher (Respondent No.1 was also a publisher, however, it is not necessary to advert to the same as Respondent No.1 was exonerated in the trial Court itself as mentioned supra).
12.I have already set out the plaintiff's case in a nutshell in paragraph 4 supra. It may now be necessary to set out the sheet anchor of the defence of defendant No.2. The defence was straight, simple and clear. The case of the 2nd defendant is that one Anbu Nilayam (another publisher), published a book with the same title ?Maha Kavi Dhante?, way back in 1940 (This book was marked as Ex.B.1). In Ex.B.1, it has been mentioned that Yogi Shuddhananda Bharathi has assigned copyright in the book which goes by the title ?Maha Kavi Dhante? in favour of Anbu Nilayam. Obviously, said assignment of copyright is prior to 1940. On this basis, 2nd defendant contended that the suit is ill-conceived and deserves to be dismissed.
13.Further to be noted, with regard to defendant No.2, which is the lone contestant now, the allegation of infringement of copyright is qua only one book and that is the aforesaid book which goes by the title ?Maha Kavi Dhante?, as set out supra.
14.To be noted, the sole contesting respondent being respondent No.2, has been duly served and sole contestant here has also entered appearance through counsel. As the counsel did not appear, I had directed the Registry vide earlier proceedings of this Court dated 12.04.2017, to print the name of the 2nd defendant also (with full / complete address) and that has been done today. Notwithstanding this position that there is no representation for respondent No.2, who is the lone contestant herein, I have chosen to examine this appeal on merits and write this judgment. In other words, this is a judgment on merits notwithstanding the fact that the sole contesting respondent being Respondent No.2 is not before this Court.
15.Before I proceed to examine the judgment of the trial Court, it may be necessary to chronicle some events in terms of dates. There is no dispute that Yogi Shuddhananda Bharathi executed a Will dated 14.10.1981. His demise was on 07.03.1990 and his Will dated 14.10.1981 was probated by the same trial Court, vide order in probate proceedings dated 07.04.1999, in Probate Original Petition No.1 of 1997. To be noted, this probate granted by the trial Court dated 07.04.1999 has been marked as Ex.A.3 in the trial Court.
16.Mr.Srinivasa Raghavan, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, drew my attention to Section 22 of Copyright Act, which reads as follows:
?Term of Copyright in published literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works. - Except as otherwise hereinafter provided, copyright shall subsist in any literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work published within the lifetime of the author until [sixty years] from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the author dies.?
17.On the basis of Section 22, learned Counsel submitted that copyright in the literary works of Yogi Shuddhananda Bharathi would commence to operate only from the date of his demise ie., 07.03.1990. It is his further submission that it will operate for a period of sixty years from 07.03.1990, which means, the copyright will subsist till 06.03.2050.
18.Suit in the trial Court was filed and taken on file on 20.12.2001 and 20.10.2003, respectively. Therefore, by operation of Section 22, copyright did subsist in the plaintiff (on the date of filing of the suit) qua the aforesaid work being literary work in the form of a book which goes by the title ?Maha Kavi Dhante?.
19.Submission of learned Counsel Mr.Srinivasa Raghavan on Section 22 of copyright Act, is absolutely correct. There is no difficulty in accepting his submission.
20.There is no reference to Section 22 in the trial Court judgment. In other words, to be fair to the trial Court, Section 22 was not pressed into service in the trial Court. However, this being a regular first appeal under Section 96 CPC, learned Counsel is certainly entitled to raise that point on the basis of pleadings in the trial Court as this Court, exercising powers under Section 96 CPC, still continues to be a Court of facts, albeit the last Court of facts.
21.On the aforesaid basis, learned Counsel submitted that the trial Court ought to have taken note of Section 22, though, it was not pressed into service. Irrespective of whether it was pressed into service in the trial Court or not, I am entitled to look into the aforesaid submission under Section 96 and I have already alluded to this supra and opined that the submission is tenable and acceptable.
22.However, there is another difficulty for the plaintiff. That difficulty is Ex.B.1. As alluded to supra, Ex.B.1, is a book published by another publisher with the same title, way back in 1940. Ex.B.1 clearly mentions that Yogi Shuddhananda Bharathi has assigned copyright in the said book in favour of that publisher i.e., Anbu Nilayam. This effectively means that on the date of execution of the aforesaid Will, ie., 14.10.1981, the author of the literary work ie., Yogi Shuddhananda Bharathi, himself did not have any copyright. In other words, on the date of execution of the Will dated 14.10.1981, the author had already assigned his copyright in the aforesaid literary work in favour of Anbu Nilayam. In is regard, it is to be noted that in the Will dated 14.10.1981, there is no enumeration of works done by the testator / author. There is a generic and sweeping clause in the Will which says that all works of Yogi Shuddhananda Bharathi will stand bequeathed. The clause in the Will which is annexed to the probate order dated 07.04.1999 (Ex.A.3), reads as follows:
?I devise and bequeath all my properties and assests consisting of Bank-deposits, in fixed and Savings bank accounts in Scheduled banks, prize bonds, cash certificates, shares in business concerns and companies, land and buildings in Adyar and Vadalur and outstandings due from any customers in the business of Shuddhananda Library of which I am the sole properiter, all either in my individual name or in the name of Yoga Samaj, Adyar or Yoga Samaj Vadalur, and Shuddhananda Library and the copyright of all my works to the Shuddhananda Yoga Samaj, Sivaganga, represented by the Secretary of Shuddhananda Yoga Samaj Sivaganga who shall be entitled to convert all my properties and assets into any kind of security or other assests and keep the same invested in such security as they deem fit and utilise the proceeds by way of annuities towards purpose and objeccts set forth in the memorandum of Association of Shuddhananda Yoga Samaj, Sivaganga and also to reliese such protion of my properties and assests as fixed by the executive committee of Shuddhananda Yoga Samaj, Sivaganga by the or resolution at a meeting of the executive committee towards capital expenditure and the welfare projects of Shuddhananda Yoga Samaj, Sivaganga.?
23.The fact that there is no enumeration of literary works of the author ie., Yogi Shuddhananda Bharathi and much less enumeration in terms of title of the book has been clearly noticed by the trial Court.
24.The fact that the testator ought to have assigned the copyright as far as title in the aforesaid book is concerned, prior to 1940, was not disputed by P.W.1. To be noted, one Venkata Krishnan, who is the Secretary of the plaintiff Society was examined as P.W.1. In the cryptic but crisp cross examination, P.W.1 has unambiguously brought out this position. Cross examination of P.W.1 reads thus:
?gp.rh.M.1 vd;w g[j;jfk; Rj;jhde;j ghujpahuhy; vGjg;gl;lJ MFk;. me;j g[j;jfj;ij ehd; ghh;j;Js;nsd;. me;j g[j;jfk; vd; iftrk; ,y;iy. gp.rh.M.1 vd;w g[j;jfj;jpd; -- btspapLgtuhf md;g[ epiyak;> ,uhkr;re;jpug[uk; vdf; Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ. nahfpahh; vGjpa g[j;jfq;fSf;fhf gjpg;g[ chpik tptug;gl;oay; vq;fsplk; ,y;iy. gp.rh.M.1 jhd; Kjy; gjpg;g[ MFk;. mjpy; midj;J chpikfSk; ,uhkr;re;jpug[uk;> md;g[ epiyaj;jpw;FhpaJ vd;W Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ. nahfpahh; vGjp itj;j capy; rhrdj;jpd; mog;gilapy; me;j gjpg;g[ vq;fSf;F chpaJ vd;W ehd; Twfpnwd;. me;j capy; rhrdk; th.rh.M.3 MFk;. mjpy; 2k; gf;fj;jpy; nahfpahh; vGjg;gl;l midj;J g[j;jfj;jpd; gjpg;g[ chpika[k; nahfh rkh$j;jpw;F vGjg;gl;ljhf Fwpg;gpl;Ls;sJ. nahfpahh; vGjpa g[j;jfj;jpy; gl;oay; vd;dplk; ,y;iy. mth; gy g[j;jfq;fs; vGjpa[s;shh;. ahh; ahUf;bfy;yhk; mg;g[j;jfq;fs; gw;wp gjpg;g[ chpik tHq;fpa[s;shh; vd;gJ gw;wp vdf;F bjhpahJ. th.rh.M.2 vd;w rkh$j;jpw;Fhpa tpjpKiwfspy;> ehq;fs; Xh; g[j;jfj;ij gjpg;g[ bra;tjhf ,Ue;jhy; ,ytrkhfj;jhd; mr;rplntz;Lk; vd;W Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ. gp.rh.M.1 vd;w g[j;jfk; 230 gf;fj;jpw;Fk; nky; cs;sJ. mjd; tpiy U:.1 vd;W Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ. Mfnt gp.rh.M.1 vd;w g[j;jfKk;> mijr; rhh;e;j g[j;jfKk; th;j;jf hPjpahf nghlg;gltpy;iy. gp.rh.M.1 vd;w g[j;jfk; th;j;jf hPjpahf Vw;gLj;jg;gl;l g[j;jfk; vd;gJ rhpay;y. capy; rhrdj;jpd; mog;gilapy; jhd; nahfpahh; vGjpa g[j;jfq;fs; nahfh rkh$j;jpw;F chpaJ vd;W TWfpnwd;. gp.rh.M.1 vd;w g[j;jfj;jpd; gjpg;g[chpikiag; gw;wp ehq;fs; md;g[ epiyaj;njhL bjhlh;g[ bfhs;stpy;iy. gp.rh.M.1 vd;w g[j;jfj;jpy; midj;J chpikfSk; md;g[ epiyaj;jpw;F vd;W Fwpg;gplg;gl;oUg;gij ehq;fs; kWf;ftpy;iy.?
[underlining made by me to supply emphasis and highlight].
25.Therefore, the plaintiff's pleadings read with Ex.A.3 and Ex.B.1 coupled with the aforesaid deposition of P.W.1, makes it clear that the testator of the Will under whom the plaintiff society is claiming, had assigned his literary work qua this particular book prior to 1940. This has been very succinctly and lucidly articulated by the trial Court in paragraph No.11 of the judgment which has been called in question in this first appeal. I deem it appropriate to extract paragraph No.11 and the same reads as follows:
?11.,t;tHf;fpy; kw;Wk; Xh; tpnehjk; ahbjdpy;> ,j;jhth g[j;jfk; 1940k; Mz;L $#iy khjnk g[Jf;nfhl;il khepyj;jpy; cs;s md;g[ epiyaj;jhy; btspaplg;gl;L> mg;g[j;jfj;jpnyna> midj;J chpikf;Fk; g[Jf;nfhl;il khepy md;g[ epyj;jpw;F ghj;jpag;gl;lJ vd;W bjs;sj;bjspthd bkhHpapy; Fwpg;gplg;gl;oUe;jJk; g[ydhFk;. gp.rh.M.1 vd;w g[Jf;nfhl;il khepy md;g[ epiyaj;jpduhy; 1940k; Mz;L $#iy khjk; btspaplg;gl;l g[j;jfj;ijg; ghh;itapLk;bghGJ> mjpy; fPH;f;fz;lthW Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ:-
?All Rights Reserved by THE ANBU NILAYAM, Ramachandrapuram, Pudukottai State.
vdnt> ,j;jhth g[j;jfj;jpd; midj;J gjpg;g[hpika[k; g[Jf;nfhl;il khepy md;g[ epiyaj;jpw;Fj;jhd brhe;jkhdJ vd ,yFtpy; KobtLj;Jtplyhk;. 1940k; Mz;L gp.rh.M.1 vd;w g[j;jfk; btspaplg;gl;lbghGJ ftpnahfp Rj;jhde;j ghujp capnuhL ,Ue;Js;shh;. mth; 1990k; Mz;L jhd; ,we;Js;shh;. ,Ug;gpDk; gp.rh.M.1 vd;w g[j;jfj;jpy;> midj;J gjpg;g[hpika[k; md;g[ epiyaj;jpd; trnk cs;sJ vdj; bjspthd Fwpg;gplg;gl;oUe;j nghjpYk; Tl> mjid Ml;nrgpj;J ftpnahfp Rj;jhde;j ghujp ahbjhU eltof;ifa[k; vLf;ftpy;iy. md;g[ epiyaj;jpdh; kPJ jd; chpikia epiyehl;of;bfhs;s tHf;Fk; bjhlutpy;iy. Mfnt> ftpnahfp Rj;jhde;j ghujpapd; $Ptpj fhyj;jpnyna jhth g[j;jfj;jpd; gjpg;g[hpik midj;Jk; g[Jf;nfhl;il khepy md;g[ epiyaj;jpw;nf ghj;jpag;gl;lJ vdj; bjspthf btspg;gLj;jg;gl;Ltpl;lnghjpYk;> mjid ftpnahfp Rj;jhde;j ghujp Ml;nrgiz vJt[k; bra;atpy;iy vd;gjhYk;> jhth g[j;jfj;ij thjpf;Fhpa gjpg;g[hpikia kPwp 2k; gpujpthjp btspapl;lhh; vd KobtLf;f ,ayhJ vd ehd; Kot[ bra;fpnwd;.?
26.The records of the trial Court are before me. I have carefully considered and perused Ex.A.3 and Ex.B.1. I have also gone through the deposition of P.W.1 in detail.
27.In the light of the above, I am of the view that the verdict, which the trial Court has returned, particularly, on the basis of the finding in paragraph No.11, which has been extracted supra is correct and does not deserve to be interfered with.
28.It is seen that there is no other ground to interfere with the judgment and decree of the trial Court as paragraph No.11 of the trial Court judgment extracted supra has nailed the issue conclusively. Owing to this, Section 22 of Copyright argument of Mr.Srinivasa Raghavan, learned Counsel for appellant which has been alluded to supra pales into insignificance. It is of no help to appellant in the instant case.
29.Owing to all that have been set out supra, as there is no ground to interfere with the well considered judgment of the trial Court which has detailed all the aforesaid aspects of the matter, the same does not deserve to be interfered with.
30.Appeal fails. Appeal deserves to be dismissed and I do so.
31.Considering the nature of the lis and the trajectory of the litigation, coupled with the nature of the hearing today, I am of the view that the parties should be left to bear their respective costs. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To
1.The Judge, District Court, Sivagangai.
2.The Section Officer, E.R.Section/V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.