OM PRAKASH Vs. PTRADHEY SHYAM KATHAWACHAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals arise out of three suits which were filed in the Court of the District Judge of Bareilly. Pandit Badhey Shyam Kathawachak, plaintiff in all the three suits, is a Hindi author who has written several dramas. He was employed by the New Alfred Theatrical Company of Bombay to write certain plays for them. The plaintiff wrote nine dramas, the stage rights in which remained with the company while all other rights were vested in the plaintiff. There were twelve other dramas which had been written by other authors copyrights in which were purchased by the plaintiff from the New Alfred Theatrical Company. Suit No. 3 of 1938 out of which First Appeal No. 217 of 1941 has arisen was filed by the plaintiff against the Twin Record Co. Ltd., on the ground that they had without the plaintiff's consent made certain records of songs of a drama named "Ishwar Bhakti" and were offering the same for sale to the public. Defendant 1, the Twin Record Co. Ltd., had also been printing, publishing and distributing small booklets containing extracts from the said drama. The plaintiff alleged that the Twin Record Co. Ltd., had thus infringed the plaintiff's copyright and he, therefore, brought this suit for injunction, for accounts and for other reliefs. Defendants 2 to 4 to the action were two minor sons and the widow of Lala Mukundi Lal Agarwal of Delhi, but so far as we can see no relief was originally claimed against them and it was not mentioned why they had been impleaded. By an application for amendment filed on 24th September 1938 a further relief was added for a declaration of the plaintiff's ownership of the copyright in the said drama "Ishwar Bhakti" along with other dramas mentioned in a schedule marked as No. 2 and it was said that defendants 2 and 3 had been circulating notices in Bareilly through newspapers and placards claiming copyright in the said dramas.

(2.) The other suit No. 4 of 1938 out of which First Appeal No. 218 of 1941 has arisen was filed by the plaintiff on the allegation that the Gramophone Co. Ltd., and the Twin Record Co. Ltd., Calcutta, had started manufacture and sale of certain records and songs and compositions out of certain dramas written by the plaintiff and had done so without the plaintiff's consent. Various reliefs on the ground of infringement of copyright were claimed against defendants 1 and 2 but no relief was claimed against defendants 3 and 4, the two sons of Lala Mukundi Lal of Delhi though they were impleaded as defendants to the action. Later on, on the same allegation as in the previous case set out above the plaintiff claimed a declaration that he was the owner of copyright of the dramas named in Schedule 3 attached to the plaint. The third suit, No. 5 of 1938, out of which First Appeal No. 219 of 1941 has arisen, was filed against the two sons of Lala Mukundi Lal, Om Prakash Agrawal and Jagdish Prasad Agrawal, for a declaration that the plaintiff was the owner of the copyright in certain dramas and defendants 1 and 2 had no right whatsoever in the said copyright. The allegation made in this plaint was that the defendants had circulated in Bareilly and other places copies of the "Hindusthan Times" and other newspapers and placards claiming the right to sell the copyright in the dramas named in schedule attached to the plaint on the ground that they held a possessory mortgage of the same from the New Alfred Theatrical Company Bombay.

(3.) The Gramophone Co. Ltd., and the Twin Becord Co. Ltd., Calcutta entered into a compromise with the plaintiff and suits Nos. 3 and 4 of 1938 between the plaintiff and these two companies were decided in terms of the compromise. We have nothing to do, therefore, with that part of the case. The two minor sons of Mukundi Lal and his widow, however, contested the suits and the suits were decreed against them and the Court below granted the plaintiff a declaration that the plaintiff was the owner of the copyright of the dramas mentioned in the schedule attached to each plaint. It is against those decrees that the sons of Mukundi Lal have filed these three appeals. Learned Counsel for the appellants has urged that the suit was not cognisable by the learned District Judge of Bareilly on two grounds. His first contention is that the suit did not relate to a case of an infringement of copyright and therefore it should have been filed in the ordinary civil Court and not in the Court of the learned District Judge of Bareilly. His second contention is that there was no cause of action within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned District Judge of Bareilly and the suit, if at all, could be filed in Delhi and not in the Bareilly Court.