H V RATHRE Vs. CHIEF SECRETARY AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question involved in this revision petition is whether a suit brought by the petitioner against His Highness Sri Jayachamaraja Wadeyar Bahadur who is defendant 2 in that suit without the consent of the Central Government certified by a Secretary to that Government is maintainable. This is how the question arises :

(2.) The petitioner who is the plaintiff in the suit brought by him in the Court below, sought an injunction against the Government of the new State of Mysore and against His Highness Sri Jayachamaraja Wadeyar Bahadur for a permanent injunction restraining them from infringing the copyright of the plaintiff in a work entitled "History of Mysore (1399-1799)" and also for damages. The plaintiff's case was that his father, Rajacharita Visharada Rao Bahadur C. Hayavadana Rao was the author of the work in which the plaintiff claimed a copyright and which recorded the authentic history of Mysore based on the materials collected by the author. This work, according to the plaintiff, had been dedicated by the author to the second defendant and the author had the right to be handed over the copies of the work after the books were printed by the Government of Mysore, which according to the plaintiff, published a Government Order on March 26, 1936, recording the arrangement on which the plaintiff relied. The plaintiff's complaint was that after the printing of the volumes by the Government at its own press, some books had been sold to the public, others taken by the Palace of defendant 2 and the others distributed to the various Government Offices, colleges and libraries. This action, according to the plaintiff, constituted an infringement of the copyright in the book which his father had and which, according to him now vests in him.

(3.) In the Court below the objection raised on behalf of defendant 2 was that the suit against him was not maintainable since, as required Section 87B of the Code of Civil Procedure, the consent of the Central Government had not been obtained. That argument was accepted by the Court below with the result that the suit against defendant 2 was dismissed. It is the correctness of this view which is challenged in this revision petition and Mr. Ramachandra Rao appearing on behalf of the petitioner has urged that the Court below overlooked in coming to the conclusion that the suit against defendant 2 was not maintainable, the provisions of Article 361(4) of the Constitution, compliance with which made obedience to Section 87B of the Code of Civil Procedure unnecessary.