KRISHNA SOBTI Vs. ARNRITA PRITAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order I shall dispose of application of Mrs. Krishna Sobti plaintiff/applicant under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the grant of ad interim injunction against the defendants directing them to delete the word 'Zindginama' from the title of the book 'Hardutt Ka Zindginama' written by defendant No. I and published by defendants No. 2 to 4 in different languages and restraining the defendants from publishing, advertising, marketing or selling the book 'Hardutt Ka Zindginama' or from passing off that book as the book 'Zindginama' written by the plaintiff. The plaintiff Mrs. Krishna Sobti is a well-known Hindi writer and has published a number of literary works to her credit. Her novel 'Zindginama' was published in the year 1979 whereof the plaintiff has the copyright. This work of the plaintiff received acclamation in the literary circles and the reading public. The book 'Zindginama' got the Sahitya Academy Award for Hindi literary work in the year 1980. The book also got Sahitya Shiromani Award given by the Language Department of the State of Punjab. The book is a narration in novel form about the saga of Punjab and deals with the dominant elements of life in the agrarian prepartition Punjab during 1900-1918, of its life (Zindgi) and time (Nama) and not about any particular individual. The case of the plaintiff is that upon receiving these awards the book acquired a secondary meaning and came to be associated with the plaintiff's name alone and the plaintiff has got copyright in the same. It is alleged that the plaintiff invented the title 'Zindginama' for her novel. The two parts of the title 'Zindginama' i.e. 'Zindgi' and 'Nama' are both independent Urdu/Persian words and have not been used in writings, nor are they to be found as composite one word in Persian, Urdu or Hindi dictionary. The word 'Zindgi' is of feminine and the word 'Nama' is of masculine gender and that the bringing together of these two words in the title 'Zindginama' is an odd construction and is in violation of linguistic convention. It was thus a unique and original title coined by the plaintiff.

(2.) Ms. Amrit Pritam, defendant No. I, is admittedly a great poetess of repute. She has won the Sahitya Academy Award for poetry in the year 1956 and Gyanpeeth for poetry in the year 1980 (vide para 17 of the p)aint). She, amongst others, has also stated in her written statement that she has got acclaim and recognition for her prose writings, as well as for her other literary work and has detailed a number of her prose works including novel and about the acclaim and recognition she has got for her literary works, both poetry and prose. Defendant No. I authored her book 'Hardutta Ka Zindginama' in Punjabi which was published in the year 1983 by Lau Prakashan, Amrnritsar, Defendant No. 4. It was later translated in other languages and was later published in Urdu and Hindi by defendants No. 2 and 3 respectively. Shri Hardutt is a living person hailing from Punjab. He is the only Indian revolutionary who served a sentence of imprisonment in Siberia. The book 'Hardutta Ka Zindginama' of defendant No. I gives a life account of Shri Hardutt. In the written statements and the replies to the application as filed by the defendants they controverted the material allegations of the plaintiff.

(3.) I proposed to pass a short order on the application. However, as lengthy arguments have been advanced in the case spread over a number of days and lot case law was cited on both the sides, I am passing this not too brief an order so as to briefly deal with the points raised in the arguments of the case. Mr. A K. Sen, learned Senior Advocate and later Mr. Mahinder Narain, learned counsel for the plaintiff, basing their case on the aforesaid allegations have contended that the title of the book 'Zindginama' was never used by any writer in India or elsewhere as the title of a book and. it was an original, novel and unique title as coined by the plaintiff and this title has become associated with the book of the plaint iff in question and the plaintiff has thus got a copyright in the title 'Zindginama' as the title of his or her book either singly as such or in combination with some other words for a book falling in the category of 'novels' which has some clement of friction therein. The other contention of the plaintiff is that the impugned book of the defendants 'Hardutt Ka Zindginama' in Punjabi and its translation in Urdu and Hindi are likely to be confused as the book 'Zindginama' written by the plaintiff in Hindi or its translation in Punjabi or in Urdu, as the case may be, and some readers who want to read the book 'Zindginama' of the plaintiff are likely to be deceived and may take the book 'Hardutt Ka Zindginama' of defendant No. 1 as the book 'Zindginama' of the plaintiff i.e. that the book of defendant No. 1 is likely to be passed off as the book of the plaintiff.