M. RADHAKRISHNAN Vs. SURABHI PUBLICATIONS AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.No.1 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Additional District Judge of Mavelikkara. The respondents are the defendants therein. The suit instituted by the appellant under section 55 of the Copyright Act, 1957, for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants 1 to 5 from selling, marketing or reprinting the book Sreenarayana Guru Deva Bhagavatham with the portions and lines shown in the plaint schedule, which it is alleged, were copied and pirated from the literary work of the plaintiff by name "Sree Narayana Guru Bhagavatham"; for a mandatory injunction directing defendants 1 to 5 to include a courtesy to the plaintiff in the foreword of the book printed and kept by them for sale and to publish a public notice in the major Malayalam dailies expressing their obligation to the plaintiff in relation to the lines and portions shown in the plaint schedule and allowing the plaintiff to realise the sum of Rs.50,000/ - jointly and severally from the assets of defendants 1 to 5 as special and general damages, was dismissed by the trial court by decree and judgment delivered on 30.3.2009. The plaintiff has, aggrieved thereby, filed this appeal. The brief facts of the case as set out in the plaint are as follows:

(2.) The appellant is the author of the literary work Sree Narayana Guru Bhagavatham (Ext.A1) published by M/s.Sky Book Publishers, of which the 6th respondent is the proprietor. The appellant contended in the plaint that the said literary work is a devotional poem, which recites his spiritual journey through the divine history, life and preachings of Sreenarayana Guru. The appellant contended that defendants 2 and 3, who are the Managing Editor and Managing Director respectively of the first defendant publishing company, personally approached him at his residence on 29.9.2005 and requested him to sell the copyright over Ext.A1 literary work to the first defendant publishing company, that they offered to pay the sum of Rs.1,00,000/ - as consideration and reward for such sale and for including the work of the plaintiff as one of the parts in a book which contains a collection of Gurudeva literature of various authors, but he declined the demand by the defendants since he wanted to keep the identity of his literary work as a separate book. It is stated that even thereafter the defendants telephonically contacted and repeated their offer, but he refused to comply with their request, that on 3.10.2005 defendants 2 and 3 approached him at his residence and repeated the offer, that he again conveyed his unwillingness to sell the right of his book and that the defendants collected one copy of his literary work from him paying Rs.100/ -, the subsidized rate at which the book was being sold. It is also stated that subsequently from advertisements in the media the plaintiff came to know that the defendants have published Sreenarayana Guru Deva Bhagavatham (Ext.A2) just before Sivagiri Theerthadanam of December, 2005 and January, 2006 and that the said book, published by the first defendant contains a considerable number of lines adapted and copied from his literary work. The plaintiff contended that nearly 93 lines have been copied and 217 lines have been copied after making minor alterations, thereby infringing his copyright in the literary work Sree Narayana Guru Bhagavatham. The plaintiff contended that by copying portions of his book, defendants 1 to 5 have committed an act of piracy and infringed his copyright in Ext.A1 literary work. The plaint proceeds to state that on coming to know of the act of piracy committed by defendants 1 to 5, the plaintiff caused Ext.A3 notice dated 7.2.2006 to be issued, calling upon defendants 1 to 5 to desist from their illegal activities and to surrender the book already printed and published by them, that the first defendant accepted the notice and the notices issued to the other defendants were returned unclaimed, but later, on the instructions of defendants 1 to 5, a notice dated 20.3.2006 was issued denying the act of piracy and infringement of copyright. The relevant averments in that regard contained in paragraphs 6 to 19 of the plaint are extracted below: -

(3.) Defendants 1 to 5 resisted the suit by filing a joint written statement dated 16.6.2006. They denied the plaint averment that defendants 2 and 3 had approached the plaintiff and requested him to sell his copyright in Ext.A1 literary work. They also denied the plaint averment that defendants 2 and 3 had repeated the offer on 29.9.2005 and had thereafter purchased a copy of Ext.A1 literary work from the plaintiff by paying Rs.100/ -. They contended that the first defendant is the publisher of the book Sreenarayana Guru Deva Bhagavatham (Ext.A2) with copyright in the year 2005, that they have every right to publish the said book, that they have not copied the contents of Ext.A2 literary work from any book and that they have not infringed the copyright of any author. It was contended that defendants 4 and 5 have written the poem on their own, that the plaintiff has no exclusive right over the idea of Guru Bhagavatham, that many authors have written Guru Bhagavatham, that the defendants have not published Sreenarayana Guru Deva Bhagavatham by adapting, copying, mutilating or modifying or rearranging any of the lines in Ext.A1 literary work as alleged by the plaintiff, that the work Sreenarayana Guru Deva Bhagavatham (Ext.A2) published by the defendants is composed of literary works of defendants 4 and 5 and Swami Muni Narayana Prasad, Dr.Geetha Suraj, Dr.Vellayani Arjunan, Acharya Vidhwan Ramankutty Sasthrikal, V.Jayakumar, G.Priyadarsanan, Dr.Shornoor Karthikeyan and N.Natesan, that the said book contains Sree Narayana Guru Bhagavatham, Sthuthi Geethangal, Poetries, Keerthanas, Interpretations of Gurudeva literary works in Sanskrit, Sthothras in Malayalam, Sanskrit and Tamil, proses in Malayalam, translated works, other literature, biography by the great poet Kumaranasan, writings and teachings of Sreenarayana Guru, his real picture and pictures of holy places and temples associated with his name and even his handwriting and that Ext.A2 book is not an anonymous or pseudonymous reproduction of any book as claimed by the plaintiff. They also contended that the sixth defendant as publisher of the book Sree Narayana Guru Bhagavatham, has filed O.S.No.1 of 2006 in the Court of the District Judge of Thiruvananthapuram for the same relief against defendants 1 and 3, that the plaintiff has suppressed the said fact, that the plaintiff is not a party to the said suit, but the sixth defendant, who is the plaintiff in that suit, has pleaded that he is, by agreement with the plaintiff, the copyright owner of the first edition of the book Sree Narayana Guru Bhagavatham (Ext.A1). It was contended that the institution of O.S.No.1 of 2006 would show that the plaintiff as well as the sixth defendant claim to be the copyright owners in respect of the literary work Sree Narayana Guru Bhagavatham and that the defendants have filed objections to the said suit. The relevant averments in that regard contained in paragraphs 6 to 14 of the written statement dated 16.6.2006 filed by defendants 1 to 5 are extracted below: -