SATISH CHANDRA MUKHERJEE Vs. NILADRI NATH MUKHERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Three persons Niladri Nath Mukherji, Himadri Nath Mukherji and Bindhyadri Nath Mukherji who were the grandsons of Rai Bankim Chandra Chatterjee Bahadur who died on 8 April 1894, brought the suit out of which this appeal arises, against Satish Chandra Mukherji who is described as the proprietor of the Basumati and of the Basumati Press and Basumati Sahitya Mandir, and as carrying on business as book-seller and publisher, and also against Brojendra Sundar Banerji who is the first cousin of the three plaintiffs and so also a grandson of Rai Bahadur Bankim Chandra Chatterjee. The three plaintiffs are the sons of Sm. Nilabja Kumari Debi, and the defendant Brojendra is the son of Sm. Sarat Kumari Debi. Those two ladies are the daughters of Rai Bahadur Bankim Chandra Chatterjee. The plaintiffs sued for recovery of damages which they assessed at one lac of Rupees for infringement of the copyright in the works of Bankim Chandra who was a well-known Bengalee litterateur, and the author of a large number of books, a list of which was set forth in para. 1 of the plaint.

(2.) Brojendra Sunder Banerjee, defendant 2 as the purported owner of the copyright in the works of his grandfather, had granted a licence to defendant 1 for the publication of those works. Brojendra was supposed to have acquired the ownership of the copyright in his grandfather's works in this way: Rai Bahadur Bankim Chandra was married to a lady named Rajlaksbmi Debi. It is said that under the will of Bankim Chandra, dated 23 May 1890, Rajlakshmi became the absolute owner of the copyright, Letters of Administration having been granted to her on 21 July 1894. Rajlakshmi herself made a will on 2 September, 1894 and to that will was added a codicil on 10 March 1907 whereby she bequeathed the copyright in her husband's books to her older daughter Sm. Sarat Kumari, the mother of defendant 2. In 1908 the licence in respect of the copyright had been granted by Rajlakshmi to the father of defendant 1, and on 20 May 1926, after Sm. Sarat Kumari had acquired the copyright by virtue of the provisions of her mother's will, she in her turn granted a licence to Satish Chandra Mukherjee, defendant 1 in the suit. That licence was for a period of five years. Shortly after that, on 19 September 1926, Sarat Kumari by a registered deed of gift transferred to her son Brojendra all her rights in the copyright in her father's books. On 4th April 1928 there was an agreement between Brojendra and defendant 1 Satish, which conferred upon the latter a right to publish the books of Bankim Chandra Chatterjee. In the plaint, the date from which the alleged infringement is said to have begun, was 23rd December 1927.

(3.) The plaintiffs founded their claim on the fact that their aunt Sarat Kumari had died and they said, her right had come to an end, because she only had, according to the plaintiffs contention, the rights of a Hindu daughter in succession to the rights of her mother, Rajlakshmi, who herself also had only the rights of a Hindu widow. Sm. Nilabja Kumari, the mother of the plaintiffs, had predeceased Rajlakshmi Debi. The case of the plaintiffs so far as their rights are concerned depended on the question, whether or not Bankim Chandra disposed of the copyright in his works by the will to which I have already referred and which is dated 23 May 1890. The case was tried by Roy, J., and the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had established their case, because the copyright had not passed under the will of Bankim Chandra at all. The learned Judge put the matter thus: The plaintiffs claim title to the copyright in the books by inheritance and it is conceded that if by his will, dated 23 May 1890, the late Rai Bahadur Bankim Chandra Chatterjee had made no testamentary disposition of the copyright in his books in favour of his widow, Sm. Rajlakshmi Debi, the plaintiffs and defendant 2 jointly became the owners of the copyright on the death of Sm. Sarat Kumari Debi.