K MURARI Vs. M RANGANAYAKAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit- O. S. No. 385/80by the respondent gave birth to fourappeals to adjudicate whether plagiarism was committed by the story writer the first defendant/appellant in CCCA 75/81, and Director-cum-Script writer, the second defendant/appellant in CCCA No. 77/83 and the producers-defendants 3 to 5/appellants in CCCA 65/83 was adopted by the producer of the Hindi film7th defendant/appellant in CCCA No. 87/83 by substantially adopting the respondent's novel 'Ide na nyayam' (This is my justice) in making~'Gorintaku' (botanical name 'henna') cinematograph film, for short, 'the picture' and 'Mehndi Rang Layegi'. The suit against defendants 6 and 8 was dismissed and became final. Since the facts and questions of law are same, they are' disposed of by common judgment.

(2.) The respondent has written a novel by name 'Ide Na Nyayam'was published initially in 'Yuva' Telugu leading monthly magazine became popular and was published in a book form in 1968. It underwent three editions, the last of which was of the year 1975. It is marked as Ex. A-11. She laid the suit for damages for Rs. 50.000/and for permanent injunction to restrain the appellants from exhibiting the picture and 'Mehndi Rang Layegi', complaining that they have infringed her copyrights of the novel, 'Ide na nyayam'. The trial Court issued permanent injunction prohibiting exhibition of the picture and 'Mehndi Rang Layegi' or to produce 'Ide na nyayam' into cinematograph film in any other language infringing the copyright of the respondent; awarded damages jointly and severally of Rs. 30,000/ against the defendants 1 to Sand Rs. 20,000/against the 7th defendant with interest and costs.

(3.) The material facts are these ; The respondent has written 'Ide nanyayam' expending considerable thought, labour, skill and novelty exposing the evils in the society with certain characterisations. Thereby she acquired exclusive copyright to her novel The producers (appellants in CCCA 65/83) without assignment by her, substantially adopted the story, sequence of events and treatment, incidents, expressions and produced the picture, with minor variations so as to suit the screen and sentiments of ungoing public. It is nothing but a replica of her novel 'Ide na nyayam'. It was released oa October 19, 1979, and was exhibited under the banner 'Yuva Chitra' and the source for plagiarism of piracy was attributed to the defendants 1 and 2. It was distributed by the 5th defendant. The picture was exhibited in Shanti theatre at Hyderabad. On seeing the same, some of her acquaintances informed her that 'Gorintaku' is nothing but adaptation of her novel. On January 7, 1980, she too saw the film and concluded that the film substantially adopted her novel. Thereafter, she get issued notice, Ex. A-3, on January 28, 1980, calling upon the defendants 1 to 5 to tender an apology for infringing her copyrights and to render an account of the profits derived. Defendants 3 and 4 gave a reply, Ex. A-4, on February 2, 1980, and defendant no-5, under Ex. A-6, of February 12, 1980, stating that the first defendant is the story writer and the second defendant is the script writer which formed the base to make the picture and they denied the piracy or infringement of her copyright. The first defendant gave her reply, Ex. A-5, February 5, 1980, pleading that she is the author of story and she has assigned to the defendants 3 and 4 to produce the picture and she denied piracy. The second defendant refused to receive the notice. The reiterated in their written statement. Seventh defendant, who was subsequently impleaded, has stated that he purchased copyrights in the picture and produced 'Mehndi Rang Layegi' and he denied his liability. The seventh defendant adopted the written statement of the other defendants. The additional stands taken by the 1st and 7th defendants are that the Court below neither has jurisdiction nor territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The Copyrights Act (Act 14 of 1956for short 'the Act') does not apply to Telangana area. The respondent did not get her novel registered under the Hyderabad Copyright Act or under the Act. Therefore, the suit is not maintainable.