TMI Blog1980 (7) TMI 276X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mar, the two sons of Pt. Ram Naresh Tripathi, brought suit No. 17 of 67 against three defendants. The defendants 1 and 2 were the Printers and Publishers of the book named SAPNA whereas the third defendant was their own brother Basant Kumar. The allegations made in the plaint were that on 25th August, 1965, the defendant No. 1 without any right and consent of the plaintiffs clandestinely got the book printed by defendant No. 2 and dishonestly wrote Hindi Mandir Prayag with a view to cheat the public. By having published the said book, the defendants 1 and 2 had infringed the copyright of the plaintiffs of the aforesaid book SAPNA and were liable to make good the loss suffered by them. The allegations made further were that Basant Kumar defendant No. 3 had colluded with defendants 1 and 2 and had given them licence to publish and sell the book SAPNA written by Ram Naresh Tripathi, Defendant No, 3, according to the plaintiffs, had no power or authority to grant licence to the defendants 1 and 2 for publication and sale of the book. On these pleadings, the plaintiffs claimed the relief of injunction, damages and accounting. 4. The suit was contested by the three defendants. Defen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ht and had committed infringement of the copyright of the plaintiff. It also found that the plaintiffs had a right to restrain the defendants from printing, publishing and sale of the books. The plea, raised on behalf of the defendants that the suit was not maintainable, as the copyright had not been registered under Section 44 of the Indian Copyright Act, was also repelled. The fact of non-registration of copyright by the plaintiffs, or the original author R, N. Tripathi, according to the trial court, could not operate as a bar to the filing of the present suit. The plea that one co-owner or co-sharer could not bring a suit against another co-sharer for the infringement of copyright was also repelled. On these findings, the trial court decreed the suit and issued an injunction restraining Basant Kumar from using and licensing the right of printing and publishing the books SAPNA and others. The defendants were directed to render the accounts of books. Thus, the two suits were decreed. 9. Being aggrieved, the defendants filed the present two appeals. 10. First Appeal No. 8 of 75 is directed against the judgment of the trial court decreeing suit No. 17 of 65 whereas the other a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, 1911, enacted by the British Parliament, subject to such modifications as stated in the Indian Copyright Act, 1914. 14. For a proper appreciation of the point it may be useful to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act. Before the enactment of the present Act, the existing law relating to copyright was contained in the Copyright Act, 1911 of the United Kingdom as modified by the Indian Copyright Act, 1914. The legislature felt that apart from the fact that the United Kingdom Act did not fit in with the changed constitutional status of India, it was necessary to enact a self contained Act on the subject of Copyright in the light of growing public consciousness of rights, consequently, the present act was enacted and the whole scheme of the Act was changed . 15. The English Copyright Act of 1862 provided expressly that no proprietor of any such copyright shall be entitled to the benefit of that Act until the same had been registered. This provision was, however, repealed by the English Copyright Act, 1911, with the result that even in England registration was not required. In the Indian Copyright Act of 1914, there was no provision for the registration. Section 44 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, the author of a work shall be the first owner of the copyright. There is nothing in either of these two sections which provided for the registration of copyright as a condition precedent for acquiring a right in it. The common law right of property in literary or intellectual production exist independently of the statute. It belongs essentially to the owner. He has the sole and exclusive right over it. However, Sections 13 and 17 which confer and recognise the copyright do not lay down any condition for the infringement of which registration is mandatory. 19. Chapter XI deals with infringement of copyright. In this respect, reference may be made to Section 51 of the Act which lists the various grounds on which copyright in a work shall be deemed to be infringed. Section 55 provides the remedies for infringement of copyright. Reading these sections together, one would find that there is nothing in these provisions which makes registration compulsory for availing the remedy provided for. 20. The view taken by me is supported by the decision given in A. Sundarasan v. A. C. Thirulokchandar (1973) 2 Mad LJ 290. In this case, the Madras High Court held that both under the Cop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been made to another decision of the Kerala High Court found reported in Kumari Kanaka v. Sundaraian 1972 Ker LR 536. The view taken is that, under the Act the registration of a work is not necessary. No section in the Act enacts that the author can have no right or remedy unless his work is registered. 25. The second argument was that i1 is admitted case of the parties that Basant Kumar was a co-owner and as such the suit for injunction or for accounting was not maintainable either against him or against the publisher and printer. This submission is devoid of merit. A joint owner can not, without the consent of the other joint owner, grant a licence or interest in the copyright. If a licence is grant ed by one joint owner without the con sent of the other, it does not bind the former and the other joint owner can sue the licencee for infringement (Powell v. Head) (1879) 12 Ch D 686. It is, therefore, not correct to say that a co-owner cannot sue a licencee for infringement of copyright. Connected with this, the argument further was as every co-owner is a joint owner along with others no suit could be filed against him for infringing the copyright. The submission is not corre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
