Madras High Court
J.Surendran vs Mrs.Sudha Vijayakumar on 21 June, 2012
Author: P.R.Shivakumar
Bench: P.R.Shivakumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 21.06.2012 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR.J C.S.No.17 of 2004 J.Surendran .. Plaintiff Vs. 1.Mrs.Sudha Vijayakumar 2.Raja Rajan Pathippakam 19 Kannadasan Salai T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017 .. Defendants Plaint filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the O S Rules r/w Order VII Rule 1 of CPC read with sections 55 and 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957 for a judgment and decree a) for a declaration, declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute and exclusive owner of the entire copyright in the work 'Naan Yen Piranthen', the written autobiography of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran, former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu; b) for a permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, their agents, servants and men and everyone claiming under them and acting on their behalf from, in any way, infringing the plaintiff's exclusive and absolute copyright in the work 'Naan Yen Piranthen', the written autobiography of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran, former Chief Minister of Tamilnadu, and written by late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran, either by printing, publishing or trading in the same or in any other manner whatsoever; c) directing the defendants to render a true and proper account to the plaintiff of the sales proceeds of the aforesaid work by selling the same in two volumes, each volume costing Rs.350/-; d) directing the defendants to pay the cost of the suit; and e) for such other suitable relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. For Plaintiff : Mr.C.Jagadeesh For Defendant : Mr.M.Sriram for D1 Mr.Vijayakumar for D2 ------- JUDGMENT
The plaint averments in brief, are, as follows:-
i) Plaintiff J.Surendran is the son of late Janaki Ramachandran @ V.N.Janaki. The first defendant Sudha Vijayakumar is the wife of Vijayakumar @ Vijayan and the second defendant is the printer by name Raja Rajan Pathippakam. Late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran, former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, wrote his autobiography with the title 'Naan Yen Piranthen'. The same was periodically published in the Tamil weekly magazine 'Anandha Vikatan'. The author late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran, was the exclusive and absolute owner of the copyright in the said work. In the publication made in the said magazine itself it had been specifically mentioned therein that the copyright in the said work remained with the author late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran. Dr.M.G.Ramachandran, died on 24.12.1987, leaving behind a Will dated 18.01.1987. The said Will has been probated in O.P.No.388 of 1992. After the demise of Dr.M.G.Ramachandran, the copyright in his autobiography 'Naan Yen Piranthen' got vested with his wife Mrs.Janaki Ramachandran @ V.N.Janaki. She passed away on 19.05.1996 leaving behind two Wills dated 22.02.1995 and 16.03.1995 respectively. The copyright in the autobiography of Dr.M.G.Ramachandran was not covered by any of the said Wills. On the demise of Mrs.Janaki Ramachandran @ V.N.Janaki, the exclusive ownership of the copyright in the above said autobiography 'Naan Yen Piranthen' got vested with the plaintiff as the legal heir of Mrs.Janaki Ramachandran @ V.N.Janaki, being her son. Thereafter, the plaintiff continues to be the exclusive and absolute owner of the copyright in the above said work.
ii) Mrs.Sudha Vijayakumar had initiated some legal proceedings against one Vijayan @ Ramakrishnan, the publisher and editor of a Tamil monthly magazine 'Idhayakkani' and one V.S.Shanmuga Ramasubramaniam, printer of the said magazine and obtained orders of interim injunction restraining the said persons from publishing the autobiography of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran in the magazine 'Idhayakkani' or any other magazine. The said suit filed by them is pending on the file of the High Court and the same subsequently came to the knowledge of the plaintiff Surendran. Meanwhile, the plaintiff was shocked and surprised to note that the first defendant Sudha Vijayakumar was making an attempt to re-publish the autobiography of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran titled 'Naan Yen Piranthen' without obtaining the consent of the plaintiff. Plaintiff also came to note that the second defendant was taking steps to publish the same at the instance of the first defendant. Hence the plaintiff issued a registered notice dated 26.12.2003 to the defendants 1 and 2 calling upon them not to infringe the plaintiff's copyright in the above said work. Though the said notice was received by the defendants 1 and 2, they did not bother to send any reply, which made the plaintiff to cause a public notice to be published in "Dinamalar" issue dated 09.01.2004 bringing the fact that he is the exclusive and absolute owner of the copyright in the above said work to the notice of the public. Even thereafter, the first defendant, in collusion with the second defendant, made attempts to print and publish the autobiography of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran in two volumes infringing the exclusive and absolute copyright of the plaintiff. By such infringement of copyright, the defendants tried to unjustly enrich themselves without having any legal right to do so. Therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to file the present suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any way interfering with or infringing the copyright of the plaintiff in the above said autobiography of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran. Despite the service of notice dated 26.12.2003 and publication of the public notice on 09.01.2004, defendants completed printing, published and sold the above said autobiography of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran in two volumes priced at Rs.350/- each. Hence in the interest of justice, an Advocate-Commissioner shall be appointed to seize the copies printed in infringement of the copyright of the above said work of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran. Defendants are liable to account for the amounts they have received by selling the above said books. Therefore, a decree declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute and exclusive owner of the entire copyright in the work of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran titled 'Naan Yen Piranthen', restraining the defendants, their men, servants, agents or anyone claiming under them in any way infringing the plaintiff's exclusive, absolute copyright in the work 'Naan Yen Piranthen', directing the defendants to render a true and proper account to the plaintiff for the sale of the above said work 'Naan Yen Piranthen' printed and sold by them in two volumes at a cost of Rs.350/- each and also directing the defendants to pay cost of the suit, should be granted in favour of the plaintiff.
2. The averments made in the written statement of the first defendant in brief, are, as follows:-
Plaintiff has not claimed any right over the movables of late Mrs.Janaki Ramachandran @ V.N.Janaki and hence he is not entitled to claim copyright in the autobiography of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran titled 'Naan Yen Piranthen' as a legal heir. In fact, plaintiff is not a legal heir of Dr.M.G.Ramachandran and he is not entitled to inherit any of the properties of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran. The first defendant is the daughter of P.Narayanan, who is the brother of late V.N.Janaki, wife of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran. Late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran executed a Will dated 18.01.1987 revoking his earlier Will dated 28.06.1986 and appointed Thiru.N.C.Raghavachari, Senior Advocate as the first executor of the Will. In the said Will itself, late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran has appointed one Mr.P.Rajendran to be the next executor after the demise of N.C.Raghavachari and has also incorporated a provision in the will that the High Court shall appoint executor after Rajendran. The first executor, namely Mr.N.C.Raghavachari, relinquished his office in October 1989 itself and P.Rajendran became the executor and he is the present executor. Under the said Will, late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran has bequeathed the bungalow situated in a portion of Ramavaram M.G.R Garden to his wife V.N.Janaki for enjoyment for life without any power of alienation. The Will also provides for a life interest jointly in favour of the first defendant Sudha Vijayakumar, Mrs.Geetha, wife of Madhumohan, Mrs.Janu wife of Sivaraman, Mrs.Nirmala wife of Ravindran and Mrs.Radha wife of Gopalakrishnan and also for the vesting of the property absolutely with the children of the respective life interest holders mentioned above after their life time. All the movables including motor vehicles, steel/wooden articles, cooking vessels and cattle except the gift articles received by late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran, devolved upon Mrs.Janaki Ramachandran @ V.N.Janaki. After the demise of Mrs.Janaki Ramachandran on 19.05.1996, the movables were inherited by the first defendant and others mentioned above, as provided in the Will of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran. Out of the beneficiaries, who were to get life interest after the demise of Mrs.Janaki Ramachandran @ V.N.Janaki, except Radha and Nirmala, others are daughters of P.Narayanan, the brother-in-law of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran. Throughout the life time of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran, the plaintiff did have no connection with him, whereas the first defendant was brought up by late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran from her childhood as a daughter. That is the reason why there is no reference to the plaintiff in the Will of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran. Even Mrs.Janaki Ramachandran @ V.N.Janaki did not make any reference to the plaintiff in her Wills. In the Will of V.N.Janaki dated 16.03.1995, neither the copyright of autobiography 'Naan Yen Piranthen' nor the movables belonging to late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran were dealt with. The same would show that late Mrs.Janaki Ramachandran @ V.N.Janaki herself did not exercise any right in respect of the movables including the copyright concerned in the suit. Even if she might have had such a right in respect of the autobiography of Dr.M.G.Ramachandran, plaintiff has given up his right to succeed to the above said property, namely copyright in the autobiography of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran by filing a consent affidavit in O.P.No.817 of 1997 filed for grant of Letters of Administration.
ii) It is true that the exclusive and absolute ownership of the copyright in the autobiography 'Naan Yen Piranthen' stood vested with late Dr.M.G.Ramachandan and the autobiography was published in 1970 - 1972 in 'Anandha Vikatan' and also in the Tamil magazine 'Thai' in 1981. While writing the autobiography in 'Anandha Vikatan', late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran, categorically asserted his copyright with a view to prevent misuse by their parties. Even after the demise of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran, during the period 1989 - 1992, one Mr.K.Ravindran, who was widely known as the adopted son of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran, reproduced and published the autobiography of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran in Tamil monthly magazine "Thai". The same was not objected to by Mrs.Janaki Ramachandran. The first defendant being one of the beneficiaries of the estate of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran, after the demise of the life estate holder Mrs.Janaki Ramachandran @ V.N.Janaki, decided to publish the autobiography of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran for the benefit of public. The plaintiff who does not have any right in respect of the autobiography written by Dr.M.G.Ramachandran is trying to obstruct the publication with ulterior motives.
iii) It is not correct to state that the Will of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran does not cover his autobiography 'Naan Yen Piranthen'. On the other hand, the Will contains a recital in categorical terms that all the movables of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran would devolve upon his wife Mrs.Janaki Ramachandran @ V.N.Janaki as life estate holder and after her lifetime, the same would devolve upon the first defendant and four others as indicated supra. As per the terms of the Will, the first defendant and the above said four others are in possession and enjoyment of the materials retained by late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran, which have been reproduced in the autobiography. Even the Wills of Mrs.Janaki Ramachandran @ V.N.Janaki do not refer to the copyright in the said work. Hence the claim of the plaintiff to have succeeded to the copyright in the said work as its exclusive and absolute owner on the demise of Mrs.V.N.Janaki should be rejected. In the Will of Dr.M.G.Ramachandran, all the movables were specifically bequeathed. However, the copyright in the autobiography 'Naan Yen Piranthen' was not mentioned in the Will. Even late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran, in his Will has made a correction by referring to Mrs.V.N.Janaki by substituting the words 'legal successor' for the words 'legal heir'. In a similar claim made by the plaintiff in O.S.No.2398 of 2000 on the file of City Civil Court, Chennai in respect of the Government of India bonds, an out of court settlement was made and the same would show that the plaintiff cannot lay any claim over the autobiography of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran. It was the first defendant and her husband who raised objection when the executor of the Will of Dr.M.G.Ramachandran gave permission to a journalist to publish the autobiography and filed a suit in C.S.No.274 of 2002 and obtained orders of interim injunction against the editor/publisher and printer of the magazine called 'Idhayakani'. Even after the passing of the interim orders, the said publisher reproduced portions of the said autobiography in Tamil weekly magazine 'Rani', which led to the filing of a contempt application by the first defendant. All along the plaintiff, who claims to be the exclusive and absolute owner of the copyright remained a silent spectator and has now come forward with the present suit belatedly in 2004. He seems to have acted at the instigation of some other persons having vested interest acting as a tool in their hands. The first defendant released the book on 24.12.2003, the memorial day of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran at a function held at Salem. The registered notice sent by the plaintiff was received only on 30.12.2003. The publication done by the first defendant was well within her rights. As the plaintiff has no manner of right over the properties of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran, the suit filed by him is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the first defendant prays for the dismissal of the suit with exemplary cost.
3. Though the second defendant has entered appearance through counsel, it has not filed any written statement.
4. Based on the pleadings, the following issues have been framed in the suit.
" 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration of entire copyright in the work 'Naan Ean Piranthen', the written autobiography of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek for permanent injunction against the defendants from, in any way, infringing the plaintiff's copyright in the work 'Naan Ean Piranthen'?
3. Whether the defendants are liable to render accounts to the plaintiff of the sale proceeds of the aforesaid work at the rate of Rs.350/- each volume?
4. Whether the plaintiff has any cause of action to file the suit?
5. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled? "
5. The plaintiff examined himself as the sole witness (PW1) on his side and produced as many as 15 documents, marked as Exs.P1 to P15. The first defendant figured as the sole witness (DW.1) on the side of the defendants and 22 documents were marked as Exs.D1 to D22 on her side. Ex.C1 was marked as Court document.
Issues 1 to 5:
6. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff claiming that the plaintiff is the owner of the copyright in the literary work of Late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran, namely his autobiography titled 'Naan Yen Piranthen'. Plaintiff claims derivation of title to the copyright by way of succession under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. He traces his title through his mother Late Janaki Ramachandran @ V.N.Janaki. According to the plaintiff, the author, namely Late Dr. M.G.Ramachandran, did not part with and did not assign the copyright he did have in his autobiography 'Naan Yen Piranthen'; that he did not make any specific arrangement in his last Will regarding succession to the copyright in the above said work and that hence, the same devolved upon his only legal heir Late Janaki Ramachandran @ V.N.Janaki. It is the further case of the plaintiff that though Janaki Ramachandran @ V.N.Janaki left two Wills, the copyright in the suit autobiography was not covered by any of those Wills and hence, succession to the copyright of Dr.M.G.Ramachandran's autobiography titled 'Naan Yen Piranthen' devolved upon the plaintiff as the only son of Late Janaki Ramachandran @ V.N.Janaki. Based on the said contention, the plaintiff has prayed for a declaration that he is the absolute and exclusive owner of the entire copyright in the work of Late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran titled 'Naan Yen Piranthen' and for an injunction against the defendants from committing infringement of the said copyright. The plaintiff has also prayed for a direction against the defendants to render true and proper account for the sale of the said autobiography that was printed and sold by the defendants in two volumes at a cost of Rs.350/-. Since the first defendant caused publication of the said work in the book form infringing the copyright, the second defendant, namely the printer, has not chosen to contest the case and the second defendant remains a non-contesting party. As it is a case of alleged infringement of copyright by publishing a literary work, namely autobiography of Late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran, this Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner for seizing the books that were printed and kept for sale. The Advocate Commissioner has filed a report and the same has been marked as Ex.C1.
7. The first defendant alone is the contesting party. She claims that she alone was entitled to succeed to the copyright of the author of the autobiography 'Naan Yen Piranthen' and it was she who took action against the editor, publisher and printer of the magazine called 'Idhayakani' who started republishing the autobiography of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran titled 'Naan Yen Piranthen'. It is the further contention of the first defendant that even Janaki Ramanchandran @ V.N.Janaki did not assert any copyright in the above said work of Late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran and that even otherwise the plaintiff, who is not a legal heir of Late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran, is not entitled to succeed to the above said intellectual property, namely copyright of Late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran.
8. Though such rival contentions have been raised and elaborate evidence was let-in on both sides through PW1 and DW1 and also the documentary evidence in the form of Exs.P1 to P15 and Exs.D1 to D22, it is an undisputed, but admitted fact that late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran being the author of his autobiography 'Naan Yen Piranthen' was the absolute and exclusive owner of the copyright in it. It is also an admitted fact that though Late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran during his life time wrote his autobiography to be published in the magazine "Ananda Vikatan", he did not part with the copyright in the said work and the copyright remained with him. The publication of his autobiography in the magazine "Ananda Vikatan" was made on the specific understanding that the copyright would remain with the author, namely Late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran. The parts of the autobiography of Late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran published in Ananda Vikatan in 1990 has been produced as Ex.D1. While Late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran was writing his autobiography that was being published in parts in the Tamil Magazine "Ananda Vikatan". the same came to be translated in Malayalam and published in April 1970 edition of Malayalam magazine called "Cinema Maziga". For the said publication, Late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran raised his objection and condemned the act of the publisher as infringement of his copyright. In view of such an objection raised by Late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran, the Managing Editor of the malayalam magazine "Cinema Maziga" wrote a letter to the publisher of "Ananda Vikatan" expressing regret and tendering apology for the infringement committed and assuring that such infringement would not be committed thereafter. The said letter has been published in Ananda Vikatan, Which is found in the sheet containing page No.109 in Ex.D1. At the foot of the said letter of Managing Editor of Cinema Maziga, Ananda Vikatan has published a foot note to the effect that the article 'Naan Yen Piranthen' was specially being authored by Late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran; that the entire right in respect of the article stood vested with Dr.M.G.Ramachandran and that the publication of the article as it is or a translation of the same without the permission of Late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran would amount to an illegal act. The said document itself will show that the author of the article 'Naan Yen Piranthen', namely Late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran, retained the copyright with him and he did not part with the same. Subsequently, the said article came to be published in the Tamil Magazine "Thai" by Late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran himself. The first part of the said article published in the magazine "Thai" has been produced as Ex.D4. In one of the pages containing the said article a box containing public notice dated 28.05.1981 was also printed. By the said public notice printed in that magazine, Dr.M.G.Ramachandran himself asserted copyright in his article 'Naan Yen Piranthen' and made it known to the world that none else could publish the same in Tamil or in any other language either in full or in part or in book form without obtaining his permission to publish the same.
9. Another copy of "Thai" magazine has been produced as Ex.D7. It contains at the foot of the article, the same box message to public as the one that appeared in the magazine "Ananda Vikatan" in the year 1970. It reads as follows:
VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED Thus it is abundantly clear that the parties do not dispute the fact that the author of the article 'Naan Yen Piranthen', namely Dr.M.G.Ramachandran, asserted his copyright in the said work and was raising objection and condemning whenever such a right was infringed by effecting publication of the same without his permission. As such we can safely hold that the author of the article 'Naan Yen Piranthen', namely Dr.M.G.Ramachandran, retained his copyright in the same. It is also not in dispute that throughout his life time Late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran did not assign his copyright in the said work in favour of anybody. Plaintiff and the first defendant have made rival claims to the copyright. Plaintiff claims ownership of the copyright of the article 'Naan Yen Piranthen' on the strength of his pleading that he got it by way of succession as per the rule of succession provided in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Similarly, the first defendant claims to have acquired ownership of the copyright by way of succession. The former, namely plaintiff, traces his title by way of intestate succession, as the copyright in the suit article was not covered by the Will of Dr.M.G.Ramachandran and was also not covered by any one of the two Wills left by Janaki Ramachandran @ V.N.Janaki.
10. On the other hand, the contention of the first defendant seems to be two fold. At the first instance, she would contend that all the movables found in the M.G.R Garden, Ramavaram were the subject matter of bequest under which Late Mrs.Janaki Ramachandran @ V.N.Janaki and others were to have life interest and after their life time, the same would devolve on their legal heirs. Of course regarding the building in which Late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran was residing during his left time bearing the name M.G.R garden, Manappakam, Ramavaram, life interest was created in respect of the portion in the building in favour of his wife Janaki Ramachandran @ V.N.Janaki and also in favour of five others including the first defendant, namely Geetha W/o. Madhumohan, Nirmala W/o.Appu, Radha W/o.Krishnan, Janu W/o.Sivaraman, Sudha W/o.Vijayakumar (first defendant). After the life of Janaki Ramachandran @ V.N.Janaki and after the life of the above said persons, the said property was to go to their respective children absolutely.
11. It is admitted by both the parties that Late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran initially executed a registered Will dated 28.04.1986 and subsequently on 18.01.1987, he cancelled the earlier Will and executed a fresh Will, which was registered on the file of District Registrar, Madras South on 22.01.1987. The said Will is admitted to be the last Will and testament of Late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran. Under the said Will, Late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran has made a bequest in respect of his properties prescribing certain charities in respect of M.G.R Cikfs; ,y;yk; to be run in the remaining portion of M.G.R.Garden at Ramavaram. Specific arrangements have been made in respect of immovable properties regarding which there is no dispute between the parties to the suit. Provision has been made in the Will for the preservation of the valuable gift articles along with the building providing that a portion was to be enjoyed by his wife Janaki Ramachandran @ V.N.Janaki for life, thereafter by Geetha, Nirmala, Radha, Janu and Sudha, the first defendant for life without any power of encumbrance or alienation and that after the life time of the said persons, the said portion of the property would devolve upon their children absolutely. The remaining portion in M.G.R Garden, Ramavaram was directed to be used for running a charitable home in the name M.G.R Cikfs; ,y;yk; and the charities connected therewith. Specific provision has been made in the Will that except the valuable articles he had got in the Cine field and in other ways, the other movables, namely motor vehicles, wooden furnitures, cookeries, cattles etc., should go to Janaki Ramachandran @ V.N.Janaki absolutely. Nowhere in the Will Dr.M.G.Ramachandran has dealt with his copyright in the article 'Naan Yen Piranthen'. It is an admitted case of both the parties that the copyright in his article 'Naan Yen Piranthen' was not one covered by his Will and the same was not one of the properties bequeathed in the Will.
12. There is no dispute that the author of the article 'Naan Yen Piranthen' was the owner of the copyright in the said work. Late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran was the author and the article written by him with the above said title is none other than his autobiography. Initially late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran wrote it as an article to be published in the Tamil magazine "Ananda Vikatan" during the period 1970-1972. Parts of the article published in the magazine "Ananda Vikatan" have been produced and marked as Ex.D1. When a part of the said article thus published in the magazine "Ananda Vikatan" came to be translated into Malayalam and published in the Malayalam magazine "Cinema Maziga", Late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran raised a protest, which invoked a response from one K.Sankaran Nair, the Managing Editor of the said Malayalam magazine by causing his regret letter containing an assurance that such things would not happen in future published in the magazine Ananda Vikatan itself. Below the letter published in Ananda Vikatan, it has been clearly mentioned within brackets that the said article was being written by late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran specially for publishing it in Ananda Vikatan and that the entire right in the said article stood vested with late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran and that no one could publish either directly or after translating it into any other language without his permission and if done without his permission such an act would amount to illegal act. For better appreciation, the said message in the bracket published in Ananda Vikatan, is reproduced hereunder.
VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED The said letter is found printed and published at page No.109 in the excerpts of Ananda Vikatan, produced and marked as Ex.D1. During his life time, late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran continued to write in the Tamil magazine "Thai". Thai magazine of 28.05.1981 containing parts of suit article written by late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran has been produced and marked as Ex.D4. In Ex.D4 itself a box message has been printed giving public notice to everybody in the name of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran to the effect that no one was entitled to publish the said article either in Tamil or in any other language, either in full shape or in part or in book shape without getting prior approval of the author late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran and that if such an act is committed without getting his prior approval, that would amount to violation of the provisions of the Copyright Act. For better appreciation, the same in vernacular is reproduced here under.
mwptpg;g[ :
VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED
13. From the above said documents, it is abundantly clear that late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran was the absolute owner of the copyright of his article 'Naan Yen Piranthen' and he used to protest against any infringement of the same. Again the same was sought to be re-published by one Appu after the demise of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran in Thai magazine. Part of the article published in Thai on 29.10.1989 has been produced as Ex.D7. Moreover, it is an admitted fact and not a disputed one that late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran was the owner of the copyright in the suit article and he never parted with or assigned it to anybody except permitting the publication of the same in the above said magazines, namely Ananda Vikatan and Thai, that too with the clear indication that no one else had got any right to re-publish the same in the vernacular or a translated version of the same either in part or in full shape. It is also an admitted fact that late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran retained ownership throughout his life time. Therefore, the next question that arises for consideration is "on whom the ownership of the copyright in the suit article 'Naan Yen Piranthen' devolved on the demise of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran?"
14. Admittedly, late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran died on 24.12.1987 leaving a Will dated 18.01.1987 as his last Will and testament. In fact, late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran wrote an earlier Will on 28.04.1986 and got it registered as document No.12/1986 in the office of the District Registrar, Madras south. The said Will was cancelled subsequently on 18.01.1987 and a new Will came to be executed by late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran. The said Will dated 18.01.1987 was registered on the very next day, namely 19.01.1987, as document No.2/1987 on the file of the District Registrar, Madras South. A certified copy of the Will dated 28.04.1986 with the Registrar's endorsement regarding cancellation of the same by a subsequent Will, has been produced and marked on the side of the defendants as Ex.D5. Certified copies of the Will dated 18.01.1987 registered as document No.2/1987 on the file of the District Registrar, Madras South have been produced on both sides and marked as Exs.P3 and Ex.D6 respectively. The said Will has been admitted to be the last will and testament of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran. Of course for establishment of any right derived under the will, either Letters of Administration with Will annexed or grant of Probate of the will should have been obtained. None of the parties have produced Letters of Administration with the Will or copy of the Will of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran annexed or the order granting probate of the Will of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran dated 18.01.1987. However, it is not in dispute that the executant named in the Will applied for probate and obtained probate of the Will in a petition filed for that purpose in this court as O.P.No.388/1992.
15. Even though an attempt was made by the contesting defendant that the copyright in the suit article was to be taken as a movable property and the ultimate legatees under the Will of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran became entitled to the ownership of the copyright by way of testamentary succession, the case of the plaintiff is abundantly clear that the ownership in the copyright of the suit article 'Naan Yen Piranthen' was not dealt with in the last will and testament of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran; that hence it devolved upon his wife late Janaki Ramachandran @ V.N.Janaki; that though Janaki Ramachandran @ V.N.Janaki executed two wills to have concurrent effect, the ownership of the copyright in the suit article 'Naan Yen Piranthen' was not dealt with in any one of the said wills and that the plaintiff being her only son, became the owner of the copyright by way of intestate succession to the estate of late Janaki Ramachandran @ V.N.Janaki. The stand taken by the contesting defendant, namely first defendant, in this regard, is not uniform. She has taken three different stands. They are (1) she is the adopted daughter of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran and Janaki Ramachandran and thus she became entitled to the copyright of the suit article 'Naan Yen Piranthen' by way of succession; (2) In the last will of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran, specific movable properties alone were given to Janaki Ramachandran and the rest of the movables were given to the first defendant and four others, namely Mrs.Geetha wife of Madhumohan, Mrs.Janu wife of Sivaraman, Mrs.Nirmala wife of Ravindran and Mrs.Radha wife of Gopalakrishnan for enjoyment till their lifetime, which shall go into the hands of their respective children absolutely on their death; and (3) assuming that Janaki Ramachandran @ V.N.Janaki got the ownership of the copyright in the suit article 'Naan Yen Piranthen' as the sole legal heir of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran, on her death, the property would not go to the plaintiff, who is not the son of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran and that the same would revert to relatives of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran since Janaki Ramachandran @ V.N.Janaki got it only as testamentary succession. None of the contentions raised by the contesting defendant, namely the first defendant is tenable.
16. It is unnecessary to refer to various documentary and oral evidence adduced on both sides in detail. It shall be sufficient to point out certain salient features found in the evidence of DW-1 to show that her claim cannot be sustained. Though the first defendant claimed to be the adopted daughter of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran and Janaki Ramachandran @ V.N.Janaki, it is a clear admission by DW-1 that no duttahonam was performed to show that adoption in fact took place. It should also be noticed that though the first defendant has produced her marriage invitation as Ex.D2 in support of her claim that she was the adopted daughter of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran, it is obvious from the said document itself that the invitation was extended by late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran and his brother M.G.Chakrapani for the said marriage. In fact two more beneficiaries of the Will of late Dr.M.G.Ramahcandran, namely Geetha and Janaki, also got married on the same day and the invitation had been printed for all the three marriages. In the said invitation all the three brides have been described as daughters of Narayanan, the brother of Mrs.Janaki Ramachandran @ V.N.Janaki. The marriage as per the invitation, took place on 31.01.1980. Therefore till then, no such adoption as claimed by the first defendant did take place. It is not her case that thereafter Dr.M.G.Ramachandran adopted her as his daughter. On the other hand, she would state that she was brought up by late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran from her childhood. That alone shall not be enough to claim that she is the adopted daughter of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran. Moreover DW-1 in her evidence during cross examination clearly admitted that after the death of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran, the ownership of the copyright in his article 'Naan Yen Piranthen' got vested with Mrs.Janaki Ramachandran @ V.N.Janaki. The relevant portion in her deposition is reproduced here under:
"It is true that the book 'Nan Yen Piranthen' is the autobiography of Dr.M.G.Ramachandran. He was the owner of the copyright of that book. After the death of M.G.Ramachandran, this copyright had vested on Mrs.V.N.Janaki, his wife."
The above said admission shall be enough to negative the contention of the first defendant that she is the adopted daughter of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran and in such capacity she got the ownership of the copyright in the suit article by way of succession. Hence the first contention of the contesting defendant, namely the first defendant, deserves rejection.
17. The second contention of the first defendant is to the effect that though certain specific movables and immovables were given to Janaki Ramachandran under the Will of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran, she was not given absolute right in respect of any property and what was given to her was only life interest; that on her death, the ownership in the immovable properties and movable properties regarding which life interest had been created in favour of Janaki Ramachandran @ V.N.Janaki came to the first defendant and four others, namely Mrs.Geetha, Mrs.Janu, Mrs.Nirmala and Mrs.Radha with a limited right for them to enjoy till their life time, which would devolve on their respective children absolutely on their death. Such a contention is quite untenable. The Will itself says that a portion of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran's house in Ramavaram Garden was bequeathed to Janaki Ramachandran as a life interest holder; that the same would go to the first defendant and four others on the death of Janaki Ramachandran and that they also should hold it till their life time without any power of alienation or encumbrance. Provisions for permanent vesting of the properties with the ultimate legatees including the Trust have been made. Apart from the immovable properties regarding which life interest was created in favour of Janaki Ramachandran, all other movables including an Ambassador Car, but excluding the valuable gift articles received by late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran for his achievement in cinema field or otherwise had been bequeathed to Janaki Ramachandran @ V.N.Janaki absolutely without any restriction. The relevant portion of the Will reads as under:
VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED In this regard, it should also be noted that the RC book of the car bearing Regn.No.TMQ 4777, which was standing in the name of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran, after his death came to be changed in the name of late Janaki Ramachandran alias V.N.Janaki and after the death of V.N.Janaki, the RC was changed in the name of the plaintiff J.Surendran. Copy of the RC book is Ex.P11. DW-1 has candidly admitted that she did not take any steps to change the RC in her name or in the name of the executor or for the recovery of the car. The same will show that the specific movables bequeathed in favour of Janaki Ramachandran @ V.N.Janaki was without any restriction and she was to get it on the death of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran as absolute owner and not as a limited life estate holder in respect of those properties. Therefore, even if it is assumed that the unnamed movables or the general description of movables bequeathed to V.N.Janaki would also include copyright late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran possessed in respect of his work 'Naan Yen Piranthen', the same cannot be construed to be a limited estate.
18. The intellectual property right, namely copyright in the work 'Naan Yen Piranthen' was not specifically dealt with by late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran in his last will dated 18.01.1987. Therefore, we have to see whether there is any residuary clause naming residuary legatee to take the properties not specifically mentioned in the Will. No such residuary clause is found in the Will of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran. It is also admitted by both the parties that no one is mentioned as residuary legatee. DW-1 has admitted that after the death of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran, Janaki Ramachandran became the owner of copyright in the work 'Naan Yen Piranthen'. Such acquisition of ownership is possible in two ways i.e. either as a legatee under the will or by way of intestate succession as a legal heir of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran. We have seen that the copyright in the suit article was not dealt with by late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran in his Will. There are also ample evidence to the effect that Janaki Ramachandran @ V.N.Janaki did not claim copyright as a legatee under the Will. Therefore, the only probable inference shall be that Janaki Ramachandran @ V.N.Janaki inherited the property by way of intestate succession as the sole non-testamentary legal heir of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran, since the same was not dealt with in his Will. Therefore, it has to be safely concluded that ownership of the copyright in the suit article 'Naan Yen Piranthen' devolved upon her by way of intestate succession on the death of the author late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran.
19. The next question to be considered shall be who would have become entitled to the ownership in the copyright of the suit article 'Naan Yen Piranthen' on the death of Janaki Ramachandran @ V.N.Janaki. It is the contention of the first defendant that even Janaki Ramachandran @ V.N.Janaki, during her life time did not assert her copyright in the suit article. Simply because there is no proof that Janaki Ramachandran @ V.N.Janaki asserted her ownership in the copyright of 'Naan Yen Piranthen', it cannot be assumed that ownership was lost. She was not an assignee and only in case of assignment the failure to claim such right for a particular time would cause extinction of the right of the assignee under section 18 of the Copyright Act, 1957. Having succeeded to the same as the sole legal heir of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran, the title did not get divested from Janaki Ramachandran @ V.N.Janaki. At the cost of repetition, it is also pointed out that the first defendant herself while deposing as DW-1 admitted that after the death of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran, Janaki Ramachandran @ V.N.Janaki became the owner of the copyright. It is also an admitted fact that Janaki Ramachandran @ V.N.Janaki was the wife of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran and they did not have any child. As late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran died issueless, his wife Janaki Ramachandran @ V.N.Janaki became the sole non-testamentary legal heir. Of course there is evidence to the effect that plaintiff is the son of Janaki Ramachandran @ V.N.Janaki, born through another person by name Ganapathy Bhat. It is the admitted case of both the parties that Ganapathy Bhat was the former husband of Janaki Ramachandran @ V.N.Janaki. It is not in dispute that subsequently Janaki Ramachandran @ V.N.Janaki became the legally wedded wife of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran implying that there was a termination of the marital relationship between Ganapathy Bhat and V.N.Janaki before she got married to late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran. Whatever it be, the parties do not dispute the legality of the marriage of Janaki Ramachandran @ V.N.Janaki with late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran and the fact that Janaki Ramachandran @ V.N.Janaki was the legally wedded wife of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran. It is also an admitted fact that, in the absence of any bequest, Janaki Ramachandran @ V.N.Janaki alone was the legal heir of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran.
20. An attempt was made to show that V.N.Janaki was not recognised to be a legal heir by late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran himself, as he has made a correction in the Will striking out the vernacular version of heir (thhpR) and substituting it with the term successor (tHpKiw) to refer to his wife Janaki Ramachandran @ V.N.Janaki. The said attempt proved ineffective. No significant difference can be attached to the term "thhpR" and "tHpKiw". In fact in the will at more than one place, late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran has repeatedly referred to V.N.Janaki as his wife. Therefore, it shall be more appropriate to arrive at the conclusion that the copyright in the article 'Naan Yen Piranthen' was not bequeathed to anybody in the Will of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran and on his death V.N.Janaki became the owner of the same as the only legal heir of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran. Whether the copyright came to V.N.Janaki by way of testamentary succession or intestate succession, it makes no difference because as already pointed out, the copyright that came to V.N.Janaki as the legal heir of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran was not limited as a life interest. Therefore, on the death of Janaki Ramachandran @ V.N.Janaki, the copyright she had in the suit article 'Naan Yen Piranthen', would have devolved upon her legal heirs. The contention of the first defendant that though V.N.Janaki became the owner of the copyright in the suit article, on her death, it would revert back to the relatives of her husband Late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran and not to the plaintiff, the son of V.N.Janaki, has been raised on a misconception of the legal provision in this regard.
21. Section 15(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is the general rule and 15(2) is the exception. 15(2) shall be attracted only in the absence of a child or child of a pre-deceased child. For making it more clear, the entire Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is extracted here under:-
15.General rules of succession in the case of female Hindus.- (1) The property of a female Hindy dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in section 16,-
(a) firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband;
(b) secondly, upon the heirs of the husband;
(c) thirdly, upon the mother and father;
(d) fourthly, upon the heirs of the father; and
(e) lastly, upon the heirs of the mother.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section(1),-
(a) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter), not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the father; and
(b) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or from her father-in-law shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter or the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the husband.
under sub-clause (a) of sub-section 2 of section 15, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or her mother shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter, not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein but upon the heirs of her father.
22. Similarly, sub-clause (b) says that the property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or father-in-law, in the absence of son or daughter including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter shall devolve, not upon other heirs referred to in sub-section specified therein, but upon the heirs of her husband.
23. If it is the self-acquired property of a female Hindu, then sub-section (2) of Section (15) shall not have application. If the female Hindu dies leaving any child or child of a pre-deceased child, then the general line of succession provided in sub-section (1) of section 15 shall be applicable. Only in respect of the inherited properties and that too, in the absence of any child or child of a pre-deceased child, Section 15(2)(a) or (b) shall be attracted, as the case may be.
24. When a Hindu women dies intestate, the line of succession has been provided under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Clause 1 states in the absence of any child then the line of succession will differ according to the source from which she got that property. In case she had got got that property from her husband, then the property would go to the relatives of her husband and not to her parents/parents relatives. If the property came through her parents, then the property will go to the relatives of her parents and not to the relatives of the husband. The said sub clause (2) will be attracted only in case of absence of a child or child of a predeceased child. When the deceased woman had got a child or children then the second clause got excluded and Clause (1) alone will be attracted.
25. Though the plaintiff was not the son of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran, it is not in dispute that he is the son of late Janaki Ramachandran @ V.N.Janaki born through her former husband Ganapathy Bhat. Simply because the marriage through which the plaintiff was born got dissolved, the relationship of mother and son did not gets snapped or extinguished. Therefore, clause (1) of section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, alone will be applicable. In either case whether the property came to her by way of testamentary succession or by way of intestate succession, since the plaintiff is admittedly the only son of Janaki Ramachandran @ V.N.Janaki, his claim to have succeeded to her property, is bound to be sustained unless it has been made as subject matter of bequest made by Janaki Ramachandran @ V.N.Janaki. In fact Janaki Ramachandran @ V.N.Janaki had left two wills dated 22.02.1995 and 16.03.1995. Letters of Administration also seems to have been obtained. But it is admitted by the parties that in none of the Wills of late Janaki Ramachandran @ V.N.Janaki, the copyright of the suit article was dealt with and the copyright was not a property covered by the Wills. Therefore, the ownership of the copyright in the suit article in the hands of late Janaki Ramachandran @ V.N.Janaki, on her death would have devolved on her non-testamentary legal heir, irrespective of the source from which and the way in which she got it. Ex.P1 is the legal heir certificate showing plaintiff to be the sole heir of V.N.Janaki. Plaintiff is admittedly the only son of Janaki Ramachandran @ V.N.Janaki. Therefore, as per Section 15(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, plaintiff became entitled to the ownership of the copyright as the sole non-testamentary legal heir of Janaki Ramachandran @ V.N.Janaki and as such the plaintiff has established his right to seek the relief of declaration and also injunction.
26. A meek attempt was made to show that there was admission and acquiescence which would estop the plaintiff from claiming ownership in the copyright of the suit article. The first defendant would contend that when the article was sought to be re-published by one Appu in another magazine, it was the first defendant, who filed a suit against the publisher and the plaintiff simply kept quiet. It is the further contention of the first defendant that the executor of the Will of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran claimed the amount covered by the Reserve Bank bonds of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran on their maturity, which were not specifically mentioned in the last will of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran and that the plaintiff did not raise objection for making payment of the amount covered by the bonds to the executor. It is also the contention of the first defendant that the plaintiff having claimed right under the Government of India bonds under which late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran had invested certain amount, later on filed a suit after the death of V.N.Janaki on the file of the City Civil Court in O.S.No.2398/2000 against the executor of the Will and the Reserve Bank of India and subsequently compromised the same by giving up his claim in respect of the bonds. Copy of the plaint and the written statement filed in the said suit were marked as Exs.D21 and D22. Of course the same is evidenced by Ex.P14, letter addressed by the executor of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran's will and trustee of the M.G.R. Memorial Charitable Trust, addressed to the Manager Public Debts office, Reserve Bank of India. The mere fact that the plaintiff effected a compromise and gave up his claim in respect of the amount covered by the Government of India bonds, cannot be projected as a disclaimer or acquiescence in respect of the ownership in the copyright of the suit article 'Naan Yen Piranthen'. Similarly, the simple fact that the plaintiff happened to file a suit against the propounder and publisher of the Tamil magazine Idhayakani and got an order of injunction against them, will not be enough to show that the plaintiff lost his copyright in the suit article. Admittedly plaintiff was not a party in the said suit. Copy of the plaint in the suit O.S.No.274 of 2002 is marked as Ex.P11. The executors named in the will of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran are N.C.Raghavachari and M.Rajendran. N.C.Raghavachari was to be the first executor and after him M.Rajendran was to be the executor and after M.Rajendran, the trustees are to be appointed by the court. It is admitted that the first executor N.C.Raghavachari even during his life time relinquished his right as an executor in 1989 itself and thereafter M.Rajendran became the executor.
27. A further attempt was made by the first defendant to show that the copyright in the autobiography of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran, titled 'Naan Yen Piranthen' was with Ananda Vikatan and the executor of the Will was approached by one Vijayan seeking permission to reprint the same in his journal Idhayakani and that the executor of the Will in turn wrote a letter to the editor of Ananda Vikatan requesting him to permit the said Vijayan, editor of Idhayakani to reprint the autobiography. The same is against the disclaimer made by Ananda Vikatan in the publications made in Ex.D1 and it also goes contrary to the intention of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran to retain ownership in the copyright as evidenced by Ex.D4. The said letter produced as Ex.D9 itself would show even the executor of the Will of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran did not claim the copyright in the suit article 'Naan Yen Piranthen' and had issued only a letter stating no objection for granting permission to the editor of Idhayakani to reprint the same on the assumption that the copyright resided with Ananda Vikatan, which in fact is not so. Therefore, there is ample evidence to show that the contention of the first defendant that there was assertion on the part of the executor and absence of such assertion on the part of the plaintiff regarding copyright in the suit article 'Naan Yen Piranthen' is not supported by reliable evidence and the said contention deserves to be rejected as untenable.
28. Admittedly, the first defendant even during the pendency of the suit caused publication of the suit article in two bound volumes in the form of a book, each volume priced at Rs.350/-. One set of the books were purchased by the plaintiff under Ex.P4 cash bill and the books thus purchased have been produced as Ex.P2 series. There is no denial of the fact that the first defendant caused the same to be printed and published in two bound volumes and the second defendant happened to be the printer and publisher. Therefore, the first and second defendants are liable to render accounts for the sale of the books. Soon after the fact came to the knowledge of plaintiff, he moved an application for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner for seizing the books and an Advocate-Commissioner was appointed by the court for the said purpose. The said Advocate-Commissioner has filed a report and the same has been marked as Ex.C1. The report of the Commissioner would show that totally 1000 copies of the article 'Naan Yen Piranthen' in the book form were printed and the book was released on 24.12.2003 at Salem. Out of the 1000 copies, 50 copies were sold to the public, 18 copies were given to the press media, 17 copies were sold at the book fair function at Salem, 100 copies were given to the first defendant as royalty and 92 copies were available in the premises of the printer and the balance 723 copies were in the process of binding in some other premises.
29. For all the reasons stated above, this court comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff has proved him to be the absolute and exclusive owner of the copyright in the autobiography of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran titled as Naan Yen Piranthen and that nobody else including the defendants do have any right to publish the same either in full or in part or a translated version of the same without the written permission of the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration and permanent injunction as prayed for and also a direction to the defendants to surrender the books printed by the second defendant on behalf of the first defendant containing literary work of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran titled 'Naan Yen Piranthen' to the plaintiff and also render a true and proper account to the plaintiff of the sale proceeds of the aforesaid work by selling the same in two volumes, each volume costing Rs.350/-. The defendants also liable to pay the cost of the suit to the plaintiff.
30. In the result, the suit is allowed and decreed as follows:
i) that the plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that he is the absolute and exclusive owner of the entire copyright in the work 'Naan Yen Piranthen', the written autobiography of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran, former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu;
ii) granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, men and every one claiming under them and acting on their behalf from in any way infringing the plaintiff's exclusive and absolute copyright in the work "Naan Yen Piranthen", the written autobiography late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran, former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, and written by late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran, either by printing, publishing or trading in the name in any other manner whatsoever;
iii) that the defendants are directed to surrender the books printed by the second defendant on behalf of the first defendant containing the literary work of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran titled 'Naan Yen Piranthen' to the plaintiff;
iv) that the defendants are directed to render a true and proper account to the plaintiff of the sale proceeds of the books printed in two volumes containing the literary work of late Dr.M.G.Ramachandran titled 'Naan Yen Piranthen';
and
v) that the defendants are directed to pay cost of the suit to the plaintiff.
List of witnesses examined on the side of the plaintiff:
1. J. Surendran (PW-1) List of documents marked on the side of the plaintiff:
1.Legal heir certificate (Ex.P1)
2.Two volumes of book (Ex.P2 series)
3.Copy of will dated 18.01.1987 (Ex.P3)
4.Certified copy of Will dated 16.03.1995 (Ex.P4)
5.Cash Bills (Ex.P5 series)
6.Copy of letter dated 26.12.2003 (Ex.P6)
7.Postal Acknowledgment card (Ex.P7)
8.Postal Acknowledgment card (Ex.P8)
9.Postal Acknowledgment card (Ex.P9)
10.Paper Publication (Ex.P10)
11.Xerox copy of RC Book (Ex.P11)
12.Certified copy of the part of deposition dated 09.09.1950 (Ex.P12)
13.Original death certificate dated 20.05.1996 (Ex.P13)
14.Copy of letter dated 03.03.2004 (Ex.P14)
15.Xerox copy of order dated 11.10.1999 (Ex.P15) List of witnesses examined on the side of defendants:
1.Sudha Vijayakumar (DW1) List of documents marked on the side of the defendants:
1. Excerpts from Ananda Vikatan 1970 (Ex.D1)
2. Marriage Invitation - 1980 (Ex.D2)
3. Malai Murasu 1980 (Ex.D3)
4. Thai Magazine 1981 (Ex.D4)
5. Will 1986 (Ex.D5)
6. Will of Dr.M.G.Ramachandran (Ex.D6)
7. Thai Magazine 1989 (Ex.D7)
8. Executor's letter 1997 ( Ex.D8)
9. Letter by executor 2002 (Ex.D9)
10.Plaint in C.S.No.274 of 2002 (Ex.D10)
11.Order copy 2002 (Ex.D11)
12.Order decree Appln. 268/2002 (Ex.D12)
13.Malai Murasu 2003 (Ex.D13)
14.Malai Murasu 6.3.2003 (Ex.D14)
15.Malai Murasu 18.3.2003 (Ex.D15)
16.Letter from RBI 28.7.2004 (Ex.D16)
17.Letter by first defendant 7.2.2008 (Ex.D17)
18.Reply by RBI dated 28.2.2003 (Ex.D18)
19.Discharge of Bonds 1985 (Ex.D19)
20.Memorandum 1996 (Ex.D20)
21.Plaint copy in O.S.No.2398/2000 (Ex.D21)
22.copy of written statement of D1 in O.S.No.2398/2000 (Ex.D22) List of documents marked on behalf of court:
1.C1 Advocate Commissioner Report asr