Deepak Kumar Sanyal And 2 Ors vs Naba Kanta Bardoloi And Ors

Heard Mr. N. Choudhury, the learned advocate for the appellants. He is an out-station advocate, who had come from Kolkata to make his

submissions. His submissions were concluded on 26.04.2018, reserving his right to reply. On 05.06.2018, none appeared for the respondents No.1 and

Hence, by scrolling the name of the said learned advocate in the display notice board, this Court had waited till 12.00 noon. Thereafter, the learned

advocate for the appellant had concluded his submissions and also submitted a written note of his argument. Thereafter, Ms. S. Roy, learned proxy

Counsel appeared on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 and prayed for adjournment, which was not conceded to and

refused and the argument was closed. However, for ends of justice, by order dated 05.06.2018, it was provided that if the advocate for the

respondents No.1 and 2 had anything to submit, it may be done in form of written argument on or before 12.06.2018, upon furnishing a copy thereof to

the local advocate for the appellant, it could be submitted before the Court Master. However, till date no written argument was submitted on behalf of

the respondents No.1 and 2. None appears for proforma respondent No.3

This is an appeal under Section 96 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 13.06.2014, passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2,

Kamrup (M), Guwahati, in T.S. No. 5/2011. The suit was filed under the provisions of Copyright Act, 1957 for declaration and injunction.

The appellants, namely, (1) Deepak Kumar Sanyal, (2) Sanjay Sanyal, and (3) Smt. Mukti Sanyal are the plaintiffs in the suit. As per the amended

plaint in the year 1970, Dilip Kumar Sanyal, the predecessor- in- interest of the appellants, had started a publishing house in the name and style of

Assam Publishing Company with its Head office at 42, Beniatola Lane, Kolkata-9 and Branch office at College Hostel Road, Guwahati-1. In course

of time, the Kolkata office was closed and the entire business of publishing and marketing was done from Guwahati. The predecessor- in- interest of

the appellants had died on 08.03.2007, leaving behind the appellants No.1 and 2 (sons), appellant No.3 (wife) as well as his three daughters as his legal

heirs. The appellants claim that they are now running the said business.

The respondents, namely, (1) Naba Kumar Bordoloi, (2) Haren Kalita, and (3) Dr. Umesh Deka are the defendants in the said suit. As per the

plaint, the respondent No.1 and the father and predecessor-in-interest of the respondent No. 3, namely, late Hitesh Deka had jointly authored a

grammar book under the name and style of “Modern English Second Paper†for the students of secondary level in Assamese medium. The said

book was subsequently revised by the said authors. It was projected that being the co-authors, the respondent No. 1 and the said Hitesh Deka had

owned the copyright of the said book. The respondent No. 1 and the predecessor of the respondent No. 3 had respectively assigned/sold their

copyrights over the aforesaid book absolutely to the predecessor- in- interest of the appellants on receipt of consideration by two separate written

agreements dated 24.10.1982, containing different terms. The respondent No. 1 was paid a sum of Rs.8,000/- as one time consideration for absolute

sale /assignment of his share of the copy right. The predecessor of the respondent No. 3 was paid a sum of Rs.1,000/- at the time of execution of the

agreement dated 24.10.1982 for absolute sale/assignment of his share of copyright of the book with further condition that the firm of the appellants

would continue paying Rs.1,000/- to him or his ought to his legal heirs annually as long as their book in the market. On death of the predecessor of

respondent No. 3, the appellants are stated to have paid a sum of Rs.1,000/per year to the respondent No. 3 and the last up to date payment was

made on 08.07.2011.

Pursuant to the assignment of copyright in respect of the book- “Modern English Second Paper, the firm of the appellants continued to publishing

the said book and it was last printed in January, 2011. It is projected that the Assam Board of Secondary Education made some changed in the

curriculum, as such, the said book was renamed as “Modern English Grammar and Composition†and the book was also suitably revised. As per

the plaint, in this regard, the respondent No.1 had issued a consent letter dated 11.08.2004 to the predecessor of the appellants for renaming of the

book, for which he was paid a sum of Rs.2,000/-. The respondent No. 3 issued a certificate dated 05.07.2011, thereby recognizing the absolute

copyright to the publishing house of the appellant. Thereafter, by advocate’s notice dated 17.02.2011, the respondent No.1 made allegation about

unauthorized changing in the name of the book and also claimed that the copyright had lapsed with the death of Late Dilip Kumar Sanyal, this was

followed by an advertisement published in Dainik Agradoot, an Assamese daily on 20.06.2011, wherein he had renewed his allegation and specifying

that he would publish the book through some other publisher. In response, a reply advertisement was published by the publishing house of the

appellants on 22.07.2011 in the Assam Tribune, English daily and in the Amar Asom, an Assamese daily newspaper. The appellants by their

advocate’s notice dated 30.07.2011, asked the respondent No. 1 not to violate the copyright or to commit breach of the terms of the contract. In

reply, the respondent No. 1 by his letter dated 16.08.2011 informed that he had entered into a contract with respondent No.2, by authorizing him to re-

publish and reprint the book in question. Therefore, claiming ownership of the copyright by way of assignment of the copyright of the book, the

appellant had filed the present suit, claiming the following reliefs:

(i) Declaring that the defendant No. 1 has no right, title and interest to the copy right of the book ‘Modern English Grammar Composition’

described in the schedule below and that defendant No. 2 has no right to republish/reprint/revise the said book with or without changing the name or

get up of the book fully or substantially or partially;

(ii) Declaring that the plaintiffs have sole and absolute copy right of the book ‘Modern English Grammar Composition’ described in the schedule

below on the basis of the agreement signed by the defendant No. 1 and the predecessor of the proforma defendant No. 3 individually and separately

on 24.10.1982 on receipt of valuable consideration;

(ii) (a) declaring that the defendants are liable to pay loss suffered by the plaintiff as determined with 15% interest thereon to the plaintiffs on and

from the date of publication of the book;

(ii) (b) declaring that the defendants are jointly and severally liable to the amount of loss suffered by the plaintiffs as determined to the plaintiffs with

15% interest p.a. till payment is made;

(iii) For temporary and permanent injunction restraining the defendants No. 1 and 2 or their heirs, agents, men or anybody else claiming through them

from republishing/reprinting/revising ’Modern English Grammar Composition’ described int her schedule below with or without change of

name or get up partially, fully or substantially;

(iv) For such other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiffs may be found entitled in the judgment of this Hon’ble Court; and (v) Cost of the suit.

On 21.02.2012, prior to the amendment of the plaint, the respondents No. 1 and 2 had filed their separate written statement to the original plaint.

The amended plaint was filed on 24.09.2013. Thereafter, the respondents No. 1 and 2 had filed their joint written statement against the amended

plaint. It was stated that the suit was not maintainable as per the provisions of Section 19A(2) and Section 21 of the Copyright Act, 1957. It was also

stated that the civil court jurisdiction was barred since the dispute is in relation to assignment of copyright. It was admitted that there was a written

agreement dated 28.10.1982 between the predecessor of the appellants and the respondent No.1, further stating that the agreement was with Dilip

Kumar Sanyal in his personal capacity, who was the sole proprietor of Assam Publishing Company, but there was no agreement with the Assam

Publishing Company and that there was no recital in the agreement that Dilip Kumar Sanyal had executed the agreement dated 28.10.1982 on behalf

of Assam Publishing Company and therefore, there was no question of infringement of copyright of the appellants. It was denied that the predecessor

of the respondent No. 3 was a joint author/co-author of “Modern English Second Paperâ€. It was also stated that the predecessor of respondent

No. 3 was not party to the agreement dated 28.10.1982. It is seen that the said written statement was verified only by the respondent No. 2 and the

affidavit in support of the written statement was also sworn only by the respondent No.2. The respondent No. 3 by filing his written statement to the

original plaint had supported the case of the appellants.

On the basis of pleadings, the following issues were framed:

Whether the suit is maintainable?

Whether the plaintiff has sole and absolute copy right of the ‘Modern English Grammar and Composition’ on the basis of agreement dated

24.10.1982 signed by the defendant No. 1 and predecessor-in-interest and proforma defendant No. 3 individually and separately, whether the

defendant No. 1 has right, title and interest over the copy right of the book ‘Modern English Grammar and Composition’?

Whether the defendant No. 2 has right to republish and reprint and revised the book ‘Modern English Grammar and composition’ without

changing the name or getup of book fully or substantially or precisely?

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction against the defendant No. 1 and 2?

To what other relief/relief(s) the parties are entitled to?

       Additional Issues:-

Whether the suit is maintainable u/s 19(a)(2) and 21 of the Copy right Acts?

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for compensation?

The appellants had examined three witnesses, viz., (1) Deepak Kumar Sanyal, appellant No. 1 (PW-1), (2) Sanjay Sanyal, appellant No. 2 (PW-2),

and (3) Gauri Kanta Bhuyan (PW-3) and exhibited the following documents, viz., Agreement dated 24.10.1982 with respondent No.1 (Ext.1),

Agreement dated 24.10.1982 with respondent No. 3 (Ext.2), Consent Letter dated 11.08.2001Â by respondent No. 1 (Ext.3), Notice published in

Dainik Agradoot dated 20.06.2011 (Ext.4), Notice published in Amar Asom dated 22.07.2011 (Ext.5) notice published in Assam Tribune dated

22.07.2011 (Ext.6), Letter dated 16.08.2011 by respondent No.1 (Ext.7), Notice dated 17.02.2011 (Ext.8), Notice dated 30.07.2011 (Ext.9), Copy of

Modern English Grammar and Composition (reprinted and revised edition January, 2011) (Ext.10), Power of Attorney by appellant No. 1 and 3

authorizing appellant No. 2 to file case etc. (Ext.11), Money Receipt dated 08.07.2011 by respondent No. 3(Ext.12), Certificate by respondent No. 3

authorizing appellants to continue publishing the book (Ext.13), Cash Memo issued by M/s. Kalyani Book Stall (Ext.14 and Ext.15), Letter dated

07.02.2012 by Managing Director of M/s. Saraighat Photo types Pvt. Ltd. (Ext.16), Notice dated 20.02.2012 (Ext.17) and Postal Receipts dated

21.02.2012 (Ext.18 and Ext.19). All the three PWs were cross-examined and discharged.

The respondent No. 3 had submitted his evidence-on-affidavit, but as per the order-sheet, the learned advocate for the appellants as well as

respondents No. 1 and 2 had declined to cross-examine the respondent No.3 and therefore, he was discharged without cross-examination. As per

order dated 18.02.2014, the learned counsels for the respondent No. 1 and 2 declined to give evidence and therefore, the defence evidence was closed

and the case was fixed for argument.

In respect of issue No. 1, it was held that the manuscripts were sold/ assigned at a price of Rs.8,000/- with lifetime rights. On the basis of

submission made by learned counsel that apart from the evidence, the predecessor of the appellants had died on 07.03.2007 and on that date, he was

survived by wife (appellant No. 3), two sons (appellants No. 1 and 2) and three daughters who are not party to the suit. The learned trial court held

that as the relief No. 2 is regarding declaration of the appellants’ actual copyright over the manuscripts inherited from their predecessor and as the

daughter had equal share over the property of their father, as such, it was held that the suit was defective and not maintainable due to non-joinder of

all the legal heirs of predecessor of the appellants. It was also held that the case of appellants was that the initial copyright was given in favour of

Assam Publishing Company but no document or evidence was produced to show that they are the proprietor or partners of the Assam Publishing

Company and that it was not clear whether the appellants had filed the suit in their personal capacity or they had filed the suit representing Assam

Publishing Company, and if so, in what capacity. It was also held that there was no documentary evidence that on the death of Dilip Kumar Sanyal,

the proprietorship of Assam Publishing Company was vested on any of the appellants individually and/or all of them jointly. No trade license was

proved to show how the appellant are related to Assam Publishing Company and the lack of description was held to be fatal. The present suit was

held to be barred under Order XXIII Rule 1 and Rule 4 on the ground that initially the appellants had filed case No. 349/2011 for declaration of their

rights of inheritance over the copyright and for injunction before the court of learned Munsiff No. 1, Kamrup, Guwahati which was withdrawn on

24.09.2011 with liberty to file suit on the same cause of action, which was denied by the respondent No. 1 in his written statement but during evidence

the appellant had not called the said record or produced the copy of the order by which leave to file afresh suit was granted. Hence it was held that

the appellants were precluded from instituting a fresh suit on the same subject matter. Hence, the issue No. 1 was decided against the appellants.

On issue No. 2, the learned trial court had held that the whole dispute in the suit was around the second book, namely, “Modern English

Grammar and Composition†and not against the earlier book, namely, “Modern English Second Paperâ€. Hence, according to the learned trial

court, the dispute was regarding the grant of permission to rename the book to “Modern English Grammar and Compositionâ€. In this regard, the

learned trial court had observed that in support of renaming of the book, the appellants had proved letter dated 11.08.2001 (Ext.3) alleged to have been

executed by respondent No. 1 in favour of late Dilip Kumar Sanyal, but the PW-2 had admitted in his cross examination that in the plaint there was no

mention of consent letter dated 11.08.2001 (Ext.3). Hence, it was held that the claim in the suit was based on consent letter dated 11.08.2004 and no

evidence was adduced on the said consent letter dated 11.08.2004. Hence, it was held that as required under Section 18 of the Copyright Act, it

cannot be said that by way of inheritance or on strength of agreement dated 24.10.1982, the appellants had acquired any copyright to publish

“Modern English Grammar and Composition†on the strength of consent letter dated 11.08.2004. The learned trial court refused to accept that the

mention of date of consent letter dated 11.08.2004 instead of 11.08.2001 in the plaint was a clerical and/or typing error because the respondent No. 1

had denied the existence of letter dated 11.08.2004. Therefore, it was held that the case of the appellants was based on two documents i.e. agreement

dated 24.10.1982 (Ext.1) and agreement dated 11.08.2004 (Ext.3), the letter dated 11.08.2001 was held to be beyond pleading and the same was not

admissible in evidence. It was held that in view of Section 18 of the Copyright Act and section 91 of the evidence Act, oral evidence of granting

permission to rename the book on 11.08.2004 was not admissible in law. It was held that the appellants had no copyright over “Modern English

Grammar and Compositionâ€​. Thus, issues No. 2 and 6 were answered against the appellants.

In respect of issue No.3, the leaned trial court held that in view of findings on issue No. 2, holding that the appellants had no copyright over

“Modern English Grammar and Compositionâ€, only under the agreement dated 24.10.1982, the appellants cannot claim any negative declaration

against the respondent No. 1 whose copyright subsisted under Section 17 of the Copyright Act, being the author of the said book. It was held that the

respondent No. 1, being the author of the book had a right to get it published without changing the name of the book.

Additional issue No. 1, it was held that in view of the admission of execution of Agreement on 24.10.1982 by the respondent No. 1, assignment of

copyright for life on the book “Modern English Second Paperâ€​ to Dilip Kumar Sanyal is proved and that copyright was held to be inheritable to the

legal heirs of Dilip Kumar Sanyal. It was held that there was no document dated 11.08.2004, by which the respondent No. 1 had consented for

allowing the appellants to renew the book. In view of decision in issue No. 2 to the effect that there is no assignment of copyright on the subsequent

book “Modern English Grammar and Compositionâ€, the publication of which is in dispute, the bar under Section 19A(2) is not applicable in this

suit. It was further held that in this case no question had arisen regarding relinquishment of right by the author, as such, the question of

maintainability of the suit under Section 21 of the Copyright Act was not applicable, and, as such, the issue was answered against the respondent No.

In respect of additional issue No. 2 and issue No. 4, in view of the finding recorded in respect of issues No. 1 and 2, it was held that the appellants

were not entitled to any injunction as they have failed to prove their copyright on the book “Modern English Grammar and Composition†and

therefore, in respect of issue No. 5, it was held that the appellants were not entitled to any relief in the suit and suit was dismissed without cost.

The learned advocate for the appellants had filed notes of argument on behalf of the appellants. It was submitted that there is no dispute that the

book “Modern English Second Paper†was jointly authored by the respondent No. 1 as well as Late Hitesh Deka, the predecessor in interest and

father of the respondent No. 3. It was submitted that in view of the assignment of the copyright a favour of the predecessor in interest of the

appellants, there was no requirement to seek any further permission to change the nomenclature of the book to “Modern English Grammar and

Compositionâ€. It was submitted that the suit was dismissed on major counts viz. (i) the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, (ii) no proof

was tendered to show any order by which the Court of learned Munsiff No. 1, Guwahati had allowed the appellant to withdraw T. S. No. 349/2011-

Sri Deepak Kumar Sanyal vs. Naba Kumar Bardalai and Ors. from, with liberty to file the suit before the proper Court as such the suit was hit by the

provisions of Order XXIII Rule 4(sic.), (iii) no permission was given by the respondent No. 1 to rename the book.

In respect of non-joinder of necessary parties, it was submitted that the nonimpleading of the three sisters of the appellants No.1 and 2 i.e. the

three daughters of respondent No.3 was wrongly held to be fatal for the suit. It was submitted that the respondents did not plead in the written

statement that the suit was barred by non-joinder of necessary parties and, as such, no specific issue was framed regarding non-joinder of necessary

parties. Hence, the learned trial Court had misdirected itself in holding that the suit was bad for non-joinder of the said family members of the

appellants in the suit in the guise of decision on issue No. 1, which was on maintainability of the suit.

It was submitted that as no specific issue was framed regarding the nonjoinder of necessary parties, the appellants had no occasion to answer the

said allegations by leading any evidence so as to demonstrate the right of the appellants over the copyright as well as to pursue the suit. It is also

submitted that there is no dispute that the appellants herein where the legal representatives and heirs of Late Dilip Kumar Sanyal and therefore, there

cannot be dispute that the appellants were the co-owners of the copyright of the book “Modern English Second Paper.â€Â Therefore, as a co-

owner, the present appellants had a right to pursue the suit in respect of their said property and, as such, the suit could not have been dismissed for

non-joinder of necessary parties. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the appellants had relied on the case of (1) Tarapada Mandal &

Anr. Vs. Hajia Khatum Bibi & Anr., AIR 1956 Cal 625, (2) Sri Ram Pasricha Vs. Jagannath & Ors., AIR 1976 SC 2335, (3) Laxmishankar

Harishankar Bhatt Vs. Yashram Vasta (dead) by LRs., AIR 1993 SC 1587, (4) K. Venkataramaiah Vs. S. Seetharama Reddy & Ors., AIR 1963 SC

1526, and (5) K.C. Laxmana Vs. k. C. Chandrappa Gowda, AIR 2009 Kar 112.

It was submitted that the respondent No. 1, vide writing dated 11.08.2001 (Ext. 3) had given his consent to publish the book “Modern English

Second Paper†by giving the title as “Modern English Grammar and Composition†for which he had taken a consideration of Rs.2,000/-.

However, though the document was dated 11.08.2001, it was mistakenly referred to as letter dated 11.08.2004 in the written statement. He submitted

that at the time of admission of such exhibits, no objection was raised in the written statement. Moreover, in their written statement, the respondents

No. 1 and 2 did not deny having issued consent for changing the name of the book and therefore, the appellants did not realize the typing error in

paragraph 4 and other paragraphs of the plaint, where the consent letter was mistakenly written to be of 11.08.2004 instead of 11.08.2001.

It is submitted that when the rights of the original book was assigned by the agreement dated 24.10.1982, (Ext.1), not only the contents of the book

but also the name of the book stood assigned to Late Dilip Kumar Sanyal and therefore, a mere change of the book from “Modern English Second

Paper†to “Modern English Grammar and Composition†did not require any fresh consent from the authors. Nonetheless, the appellants had

taken consent of the respondent No. 1 by consent letter dated 11.08.2001 (Ext.3).

It is submitted that the learned trial Court had erred in law in referring to the provisions of section 19A of the Copyright Act, 1957 and to hold that

remedy for adjudication of dispute with respect to the dispute regarding assignment of copyright must be agitated before the Copyright Board and in

this regard it is submitted that for the purpose of infringement of copyright, the civil remedy could only be raised before the District Court and could

not have been entertained before any other forum.

It is submitted that the book “Modern English Grammar and Composition†was published by the publishing house of the appellants in the year

January, 2011 and upon such publication, no objection was raised by the respondent No. 1, because the original book had to be suitably revised owing

to changes in the curriculum of the Assam Board of the Secondary Education. Moreover, for the revision, the respondent No. 1 was paid a

remuneration of Rs.2,000/- vide writing dated 11.08.2011 (Ext.3). Therefore, the work done by respondent No. 1 was by way of remuneration and no

copyright had accrued in favour of the respondent No.1 as it did not involve any original literary works by the respondent No. 1 in “Modern English

Grammar and Compositionâ€. It is submitted that outright disposal of copyright on fixed sum amounts to complete assignment of copyright and

moreover, as the book was jointly authored, the respondent No. 3, being the legal heir of the co-author could not have been overlook for dismissal of

the suit. In order to project that in order to appreciate her document/agreement the terms and recitals of the document was required to be gone into

and not only the nomenclature thereof. In this regard the leaned counsel for the appellants places reliance on the case of B. K. Muniraju Vs. State of

Karnataka and Ors., AIR 2008 SC 1438 and Sundaram Finance Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 1976 SC 1178.

It is further submitted that the initial written statement was filed by the respondent No.1 on 22.02.2012, by the respondent No. 2 on 24.04.2012,

and by the respondent No.3 on 20.07.2012. After the amended plaint was filed on 24.09.2013, a joint written statement was filed by the respondents

No.1 and 2. However, the respondent No.1 had not signed the verification and did not swear any affidavit in support of the written statement. The

said written statement was not accompanied by any consent letter or authority by the respondent No. 1 to authorize respondent No. 2 to sign and

verify the written statement or to swear the affidavit on behalf of the respondent No.2 in support of the written statement.

The appellants had filed M.C. 2827/2014 under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC for giving additional evidence in respect of (1) relinquishment of copyright

by the three daughters of Late Dilip Kumar Sanyal, and (2) order dated 28.09.2011, passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Kamrup, Guwahati in TS

349/2011 (Dipak Kumar Sanyal Vs. Naba Kumar Bardalai). Â

As stated above the learned advocate for the respondents No. 1 and 2 did not advance any argument and had not submitted a written note of

argument within the time allowed.

The two points of determination which arise in this appeal are:-

a. Whether the learned trial court was justified in dismissing the suit for non- joinder of necessary parties?

b. Whether the learned trial Court was otherwise justified in dismissing the suit?

Before appreciating the pleadings and evidence on record, it would be pertinent to mention here that out of the various judgments referred by the

learned Advocate for the appellant, one of the citations, viz., Sundaram Finance Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 1996 SC 1178 is not found in the quoted

pages. Moreover, the copy of the said citations was not provided along with the notes of argument. The learned trial court had referred to the case of

Sundaram Finance Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 1966 SC 1178. But it is not known if the learned advocate for the appellants is relying on the said case.

Hence, the said two cases could not be considered.

On appreciating the pleadings and evidence on record, it appears that in the plaint it was specifically pleaded that the respondent No.1 and the

father and predecessor-ininterest of the respondent No.3 had entered into two separate agreements with Dilip Kumar Sanyal, the predecessor- in-

interest of the appellants, who was stated to be the proprietor of M/s. Assam Publishing Company. The contents of Agreement dated 24.10.1982

(Ext.1) and writing dated 11.08.2001 (Ext.3), in no uncertain terms show that the respondent No.1 had entered into an agreement with Dilip Kumar

Sanyal in his personal capacity. The said Dilip Kumar Sanyal had signed and subscribed on the agreement dated 24.10.1982 in his own name in the

following manner â€

“sd/- Sri Dilip Kumar Sanyal

24.10.82

(Publisher)

For Assam Publishing Company (Prop.)â€​

    Moreover, the writing dated 11.08.2001 (Ext.3) is in a stamp paper, but it is in a form of a letter, unilaterally written and signed by the

respondent No.1. The said document is reproduced below:-

(Freehand English Translated copy from Assamese vernacular)

To,

Sri Dilip Kumar Sanyal,

Proprietor Assam Publishing Company Guwahati.

 I by selling my right had given the book Modern English Second Paper written by me in 1982/Oct. Since now the name of second paper has

become obsolete from the school book so I give you permission to publish the book by giving the title as Modern English Grammar & Composition. It

is mentioned that after making the necessary modifications I will send the aforesaid book Grammar & Composition within 15/20 days. I humbly accept

the amount of Rs.2,000.00 (rupees two thousand) only given by you for this purpose. I will not raise any objection regarding the change of name in

future.

Nabakanta Bordoloi

Professor, Marigaon College

Marigaon 11/8/2001

Witness

Nirupama Bordoloi

The aforesaid Agreement is done in Guwahati.

Nabakanta Bordoloi 11/8/2001

This Court is of the considered opinion that “copyright†as envisaged under the Copyright Act, 1957 is a form of incorporeal property. In

Black’s Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition, the following definitions are given in respect of the words “incorporealâ€​, “incorporeal propertyâ€​,

“assigneeâ€​, “assignmentâ€​, which are extracted herein below:-

Incorporeal is defined as - “Having a conceptual existence but no physical existence; intangible property>â€​.Â

“Incorporeal property†is defined as “1. An in rem proprietary right that is not classified as corporeal property. . Incorporeal property is

traditionally broken down into two classes: (1) jura in re aliena (encumbrances), whether over material or immaterial things, examples being leases,

mortgages, and servitudes; and (2) jura in re propria (full ownership over an immaterial thing), examples being patents, copyrights, and trademarks. 2.

A legal right in property having no physical existence. . Patent rights, for example, are incorporeal property. â€" Also called incorporeal chattel;

incorporeal thing.â€​

“Assignee†is defined as “One to whom property rights or powers are transferred by another. . Use of the term is so widespread that it is

difficult to ascribe positive meaning to it with any specificity. Courts recognize the protean nature of the term and are therefore often forced to look

into the intent of the assignment â€" rather than to the formality of the use of the term assignee â€" in defining rights and responsibilities. â€" Also

termed assignâ€​.Â

“Assignment†is defined as “1. The transfer of rights or property . 2. The rights or property so transferred creditor took the assignment>.    Â

On a perusal of the contents of the agreement dated 24.10.1982 (Ext.1) and writing dated 11.08.2001 (Ext.3), this Court is unable to accept that

the said two documents was executed in favour of the firm and not in favour of Late Dilip Kumar Sanyal in his individual capacity. It is seen from the

contents of agreement dated 24.10.1982 that there was a “total assignment†of copyright of “Modern English Second Paper†and its contents

in favour the predecessor- in- interest of the appellants’, namely, Dilip Kumar Sanyal and such “total assignment†can be culled out from the

above referred dictionary meaning of “incorporeal propertyâ€​. The designation of the said Dilip Kumar Sanyal is shown to be the proprietor of M/s.

Assam Publishing House, which in no stretch of imagination can mean that the assignment was made to the firm and not to the person, namely, Dilip

Kumar Sanyal. This Court is of the opinion that on a valid assignment in writing in respect of a “copyrightâ€, full ownership stands transferred by

the assignor to the assignee, namely, Dilip Kumar Sanyal. The “copyright†is an intellectual property, as such, upon assignment, the ownership

right over the “copyright†would vest on the assignee or the purchaser for value and, as such, this Court is of the considered opinion that by virtue

of the agreement dated 24.10.1982, the “copyright†over the “literary works†as defined in Section 2(o) of the Copyright Act, 1957 in respect

of the book titled “Modern English Second Paper†as well as its contents, has forever, stood transferred in favour of the predecessor-in- interest

of the appellants, namely, Dilip Kumar Sanyal. A perusal of the new book i.e. “Modern English Grammar and Composition†(Ext.10) shows that

the name of the publisher is written as “Published by D.K. Sanyal, Assam Publishing Company, College Hostel Road, Panbazar, Guwahati-1â€.

Therefore, the learned trial Court had incorrectly assumed that the publisher was M/s. Assam Publishing House, while dealing with issue No.1.

Therefore, on his death, the said property as well as the rights flowing therefrom would definitely pass on to the legal heirs of Late Dilip Kumar

Sanyal, including the appellants and, as such, all the legal heirs of the said deceased would become the co-owner of the said copyright.Â

With the above discussions, the point of determination No.1 i.e. Whether the learned trial court was justified in dismissing the suit for non- joinder

of necessary parties? Is now taken up. In this regard, this Court in the case of Dr. Dwijendra Mohan Lahiri Vs. Rajendra Nath, AIR 1971 Gau143:

(1971) 0 Supreme(Gau) 13, had held as follows:-

             “10.   We may observe that a court should decline to frame an issue as to maintainability of a suit in

absence of specific averment in the written statement as to how and in what circumstances the same is not maintainable in law. A mere vague recital

in the written statement, without anything more, cannot be the basis for raising such an issue. Issues are framed for a right decision of the case with

an object to pinpoint the real and substantial points of difference between the parties specifically and unambiguously emerging out of the pleadings.

Vague issues, suggested in a mechanical way, should not be framed to keep the door open for astute casuistry as a suit proceeds at different levels

leading inevitably to the law's delay. The court has to own its own responsibility in framing issues.â€​

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Laxmishankar Harishankar Bhatt  (supra), had held as follows:-

        “12.   In the written statement about the other co-owners what is stated is interesting. Page 10, paragraph 14 reads

thus:

 ""At present the plaintiffs have got no right or authority to bring the suit regarding disputed land. It is unauthoritative that it is mentioned to the

plaintiff that the disputed land has heirs obtained under the so-called sale-deed. Originally this land belonged to one Barkhalidar Gopalji. He had got

four heirs Kala, Velji, Bhavanishanker and Tribhovan. There are many heirs of these four heirs. And the land cannot be sold fully without consents

and signatures of all those heirs. And therefore, the plaintiffs do not get the right of entire ownership on the entire land and therefore the plaintiffs do

not get entire right or authority on the disputed land. All these heirs have got right, title and interest in this disputed land they are necessary party in this

suit. Their pedigree is annexed herewith and the same may be considered as a part of this written statement. The plaintiff’s suit for obtaining

possession in absence of the owner is not maintainable. And therefore, on account of the said reason also the plaintiff’s suit is liable to be

dismissed.

        13.    A careful reading of above clearly discloses that there is no clear averment as to who are the co-owners and what

exactly is the nature of right claimed by them. A vague statement of this character, in our considered opinion, could hardly be sufficient to non-suit the

appellant on the ground of non-joinder of parties. We are unable to comprehend as to how the trial Court had come to the conclusion that the

executants of the sale deed dated 12-2-1968 could not pass a full title when itself points out that the shares of the other co-owners were not known.

May be the appellant took the stand that it was not necessary to implead others but that does not mean the appellant is liable to be non-suited. The

stand of the appellant is consistent with his case that he has come to acquire the entire ownership of the suit property. Therefore, the Courts should

have insisted on some material on record as to the existence of other co-owners and their rights pertaining to suit properties. In juxtaposition to

revenue record, there must be some worthwhile evidence for the Court to conclude that there are other co-owners. Genealogical tree filed along with

the written statement cannot point to the existence of co-owners without specific evidence in this regard. Such an evidence is totally lacking in this

case. Therefore, we find it equally impossible to accept the finding of the High Court when it endorsed the view of the trial Court in this regard.

Accordingly, we conclude that in the absence of a specific finding as to whether there are other coowners and how they are necessary parties, the

suit could not have been dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. On this conclusion, we think it is unnecessary to go into the legal aspect as to

whether in the absence of other co-owners, one co-owner could maintain a suit.â€​

As this Court held above that “copyright†is a corporeal right, the same is inheritable by all the legal heirs of the said Late Dilip Kumar Sanyal

as its co-owners. Drawing analogy from the well settled law that a suit by a co-owner is maintainable to evict a tenant and/or a trespasser, this Court

is of the considered opinion that similarly, if any of the coowner of a “copyrightâ€​ is of the view that his and/or her respective right in respect of the

“copyright†has been infringed, such aggrieved co-owner can maintain a suit for infringement of the copyright and, as such, the suit by the

appellants was maintainable on facts and in law and, as such, the suit could not have been dismissed for non- joinder of necessary parties for not

impleading three daughters of Late Dilip Kumar Sanyal, as the said three daughters may be a proper party to the suit, but they are not the necessary

parties to the suit and, as such, the suit could have been decided even in the absence of the said three daughters of Late Dilip Kumar Sanyal. Hence,

the decision of the learned trial court on issue No.1, in so far it relates to non- joinder of necessary parties is not sustainable on facts and in law.

Resultantly, this Court is constrained to answer the point of determination No. (a) by holding that the learned trial court was not justified in dismissing

the suit for non- joinder of necessary parties.

The point of determination No. (b) is taken up now. In this connection, it would be necessary to visit the decision of the learned trial court in

respect of the various other issues framed in the suit.

In respect of issue No.1, on point of determination No.(a), it has been held that the suit was not liable to be dismissed for non- joinder of necessary

parties. The learned trial court had also held the suit to be not maintainable under the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 4 CPC. This appears to be

erroneous. The provision of Order XXIII Rule 4 reads as follows â€" “4. Proceeding in execution of decree not affected. - Nothing in this order

shall apply to any proceedings in execution of a decree or order.†Therefore, it appears that the learned trial court had intended to refer to the

provisions of Order XXIII Rule 1(4) CPC and not to the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 4 CPC. In this connection, it is seen that the learned trial

court in paragraph 13 of the impugned judgment has, inter-alia, held that if the declaration is coupled with allegation of infringement, then of course, the

suit will lie before the District Court. Therefore, the learned trial court appears to have recognized the fact that a suit where infringement of copyright

is alleged, is required to be adjudicated only before the Court of District Judge or its delegate. There can be no doubt that in the present suit,

infringement of copyright is alleged by projecting that the respondent No.1, after assigning copyright of literary works of “Modern English Second

Paper†had given right to the respondent No.2 to sell the contents of the said book, as such, the present suit was instituted in a court having

jurisdiction. Therefore, notwithstanding that the order dated 28.09.2011, passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Kamrup, Guwahati in TS 349/2011

(Dipak Kumar Sanyal Vs. Naba Kumar Bardalai) was not proved, but the learned Court of Munsiff at Guwahati could not have the jurisdiction to try

the suit for infringement of copyright. In this connection, it would be appropriate to refer to the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. National

Construction Company, Bombay, AIR 1996 SC 2367, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the dismissal of suit and subsequent

appeal on technical grounds, was not a decision on merits of the case, and such dismissal of suit and appeal would not operate as a bar to subsequent

suit. With the said well settled principle of law, there was no reason for the learned trial Court to disbelieve the statement made in the plaint. Once

again, at the cost of repetition, the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Dr. Dwijendra Mohan Lahiri (supra) may be profitably referred to,

wherein this Court had held that vague issues ought not to be framed in a mechanical way. It must also be stated herein that the respondents No.1 and

2 did not lead any evidence and, as such, the statement in the plaint as well as in the evidence- onaffidavit by the appellants that the previously

instituted suit was withdrawn with liberty to file the suit afresh, remained uncontroverted and, as such, the non- maintainability of the suit under the

principles of Order XIII Rule 1(4) CPC, having not been made an issue, the appellants could not have been non- suited on account of having not

proved the order dated 28.09.2011, passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Kamrup, Guwahati in TS 349/2011 (Dipak Kumar Sanyal Vs. Naba Kumar

Bardalai). The said order dated 28.09.2011, passed in TS 349/2011 is now sought to be proved by leading additional evidence at the appellate stage

under O.XLI R.27 CPC. This Court is of the considered opinion that the decision of the learned trial Court on issue No.1, to dismiss the suit on ground

of being not maintainable is held to be not sustainable on facts and in law.

In respect of issue No.2, it appears that the learned trial court did not apply its judicial mind in respect of Ext.11, which is the copy of book

“Modern English Grammar and Compositionâ€. A note by the publisher is in the inside page thereof, where it has been specifically mentioned

therein that the book “Modern English Second Paper†has been renamed as “Modern English Grammar and Composition†on and from that

issue, which is issue reprinted and revised in January 2011. In respect of point of determination No.1, this Court has held that by virtue of the

assignment of the literary work of “Modern English Second Paperâ€, the said book as well as its contents came to be owned by Late Dilip Kumar

Sanyal and by his legal heirs including the appellants upon his death. In Ext.11, it is specifically written that the said book has been renamed and it is

also mentioned therein that “Published by D.K. Sanyal, Assam Publishing Company, College Hostel Road, Panbazar, Guwahati-1â€. Therefore, the

appellants are found to hold the copyright in respect of the book under its previous as well as the present name of “Modern English Grammar and

Compositionâ€. This Court is constrained to hold that the learned trial Court had posed to itself a wrong question and arrived at a wrong conclusion to

the effect that ‘copyright’ of Late Dilip Kumar Sanyal was only in respect of first book, namely, “Modern English Second Paper†and not

in respect of the renamed book i.e. “Modern English Grammar and Compositionâ€. In the opinion of this Court, by way of a valid assignment vide

agreement dated 24.10.1982 (Ext.1), there was no requirement for the appellants to seek further consent for renaming the book, as such, the writing

dated 11.08.2001 (Ext.3), even if discarded, would have no impact on the assignment of the literary works of “Modern English Second Paperâ€

and not in respect of the renamed book i.e. “Modern English Grammar and Compositionâ€. Hence the decision by the learned trial Court in respect

of issue No.2 is set aside and reversed by holding that the appellants have the sole and absolute copyright of “Modern English Grammar and

Compositionâ€​.

In this case, although no proof and/or evidence is tendered by the appellants or by the respondents about the registration of copyright. Nonetheless,

the existence of copyright is not disputed by any of the parties to the suit and this appeal. However, in view of the provisions of Section 13 and 45 of

the Copyright Act, 1957, the finding in respect of issue No.2 is, however, subject to a pre-condition that before any right is created in favour of the

appellants, the appellants are required to comply with the said provisions of Section 13 and 45 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and register the book with

the Registrar of Copyrights. In this regard, reference may be made to the decision rendered by the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court

in the case of Mishra Bandhu Karyalaya Vs. Shivratan Lal Koshal, AIR 1970 MP 261: (1969) 0 Supreme(MP) 57. In paragraph 9 of the said

judgment [as appears in (1969) 0 Supreme(MP) 57], it has been held that â€

   “9.       … it appears that under sections 13 and 45, the registration of books with the Registrar of Copyrights, is a condition

precedent for acquiring copyright with respect to it. A plain reading of the several provisions of the Act, leaves no doubt in our minds that a copyright

in a book is only secured if it is an original compilation and has been duly registered according to the provisions of the 1957 Act.â€​

On issue No.3, in view of the reversal of finding in respect of the said issues No.1 and 2, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellants

did have a right to negative declaration against the respondent No.1. It must be pointed out that while deciding issue No.3, the learned trial Court had,

inter-alia, held that â€" “The defendant No.1 being the author of the “Modern English Grammar and Composition†having entered into

agreement, if any, with defendant No.2, has the right to get it published without changing the name of the book, amounts to a declaration in favour of

the respondents No.1 and 2, which could not have been done in the absence of any counter-claim by the said respondents No.1 and 2. Hence, the

finding in respect of issue No.3 is not found sustainable on facts and in law and, as such, this Court has no hesitation to set aside the said finding by

holding that the respondent- defendant No.2 has no right to republish and revise the book “Modern English Grammar and Composition, without

changing the name or getup of book fully or substantially or precisely.

On issue No.4, in view of the finding recorded on issues No.1 and 2, as this Court has held that the appellants, having the valid assignment in

respect of “copyright†over the book and contents of “Modern English Second Paperâ€, the appellants are found to be the holders of copyright

in respect of “Modern English Grammar And Compositionâ€. Hence, the appellants are also entitled to a decree for permanent injunction,

restraining the respondents No.1 and 2 from infringing the said copyright in any manner whatsoever and, as such, the respondent- defendants No.1

and 2 are permanently restrained from printing, publishing and selling “Modern English Grammar And Compositionâ€​.

On additional issue No.1, it appears that the learned trial Court was right in holding that the bar under Section 19A(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 is

not applicable in this case. Thus, the said issue does not require any more deliberation.

In respect of additional issue No.2, it is seen that the learned trial court had held that the appellants were not entitled to any compensation. On a

perusal of the plaint, it is seen that on account of loss and compensation, the following prayers were made in paragraph 12 the plaint:-

(ii)(a) declaring that the defendants are liable to pay loss suffered by the plaintiff as determined with 15% interest thereon to the plaintiffs on and from

the date of publication of the book.

(ii)(b) declaring that the defendants are jointly and severally liable to the amount of loss suffered by the plaintiffs as determined to the plaintiffs with

15% interest p.a. till payment is made.

It is seen that no evidence was tendered by the appellants regarding losses, if any suffered by them on account of alleged infringement of

copyright. In connection with this appeal, the appellants had filed an application for injunction as well as for stay of judgment and decree impugned in

this appeal. The said application was numbered as MC 2828/2014 and this Court by order dated 09.04.2015, while rejecting the prayers made therein

had directed the respondent No.2 to maintain proper account indicating the amount of revenue that had been generated by selling the amount of

revenue that had been generated by selling the aforesaid book since the date of judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court on month to

month basis and keep it ready for production if the same is required by the Court. The account so maintained by the respondent would be duly

certified by a chartered accountant. However, on a perusal of the plaint, there appears to be no prayer for rendition of accounts or for making any

inquiry of loss of the appellants- plaintiffs for infringement of their copyright and damages for the loss. The prayer (ii)(a) and (ii)(b) appears to be

based on loss suffered by the appellants and not based on copies of “Modern English Grammar And Composition†printed and sold by the

respondent No.2. It is further seen that in the cause title of the plaint, the appellants- plaintiffs did not mention that the suit was for recovery of

compensation. The suit has not been valued for the purpose of seeking compensation and for the purpose of paying Court fees. Moreover, the suit

was dismissed by the learned trial Court, as such, under the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to pass any decree for compensation in favour of

the appellants. As such, in the absence of any evidence regarding losses, if any, suffered by the appellants, the issue No. 5 is decided against the

appellant by holding that the appellants are not entitled to any compensation.Â

As a result of the above discussions, the appeal stands partly and conditionally allowed, but without cost.

ORDER

The appeal stands partly and conditionally allowed. Resultantly, the judgment and decree dated 13.06.2014, passed by the learned Additional

District Judge No. 2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, in T.S. No. 5/2011 is set aside and reversed by decreeing the suit by â€

a. declaring that the appellants, having the valid assignment in respect of “copyright†over the book and contents of “Modern English Second

Paperâ€​, are the holders of copyright in respect of “Modern English Grammar And Compositionâ€​.

b. a decree for permanent injunction is issued to restrain the respondentsdefendants No.1 and 2 from infringing the said copyright in any manner

whatsoever and the respondent- defendants No.1 and 2 are permanently restrained from printing, publishing and selling “Modern English Grammar

And Compositionâ€​.

c. Both the decree (a) and (b) above are made conditional by holding that before the said decree is made effective, biding and enforceable, in view of

the provisions of Section 13 and 45 of the Copyright Act, 1957, it is provided that before any right is created in favour of the appellants, the appellants

are required to comply with the said provisions of Section 13 and 45 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and register the book, namely, “Modern English

Grammar And Composition†with the Registrar of Copyrights. In other words, it is provided that if no such copyright is registered, the judgment and

decree shall have no binding force and shall not confer any right to the appellants.

Let a conditional decree be drawn- up accordingly.Â

Let the LCR be returned.