MAULVI OMAR ALI BARLASHKAR Vs. JNAN RANJAN MITRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff alleging that the defendant has in publishing a book named Bhugal Sopan, committed piracy of the general plan, arrangement, style and contents-of his book entitled Prathamic Bhuparichaya, 4 edition, instituted this suit for injunction and other reliefs on the ground of infringement of copyright. The defences taken were the usual defences open in actions of this character.

(2.) The Subordinate Judge held that though the plaintiff's book is a compilation and not an original work in the sense of originality of thought, research or investigation, was yet a work which bears his own characteristic stamp or impress by reason of the fact that he has put into it his own labour, skill and intelligence and so an element of originality of workmanship, expression, method and arrangement. He held, therefore, that the plaintiff has copyright in his book. He held, however, that the general plan, style and arrangement with regard to elementary treatises of this character intended for beginners, which, it may be said, have to conform to such skeleton standard or curriculum as has been fixed by the Educational Authorities, must be more or less the same when the books relate to the same subject; and that all authors who desire to train up young minds must necessarily follow the inductive method which rises from the particular to the general, from individual units to composite bodies, from, simple ideas and, conceptions to complex entities; and though in both the books the, general scheme of distribution of the relevant information, under certain natural and specific heads was very much the same and the treatment as regards the Surma Valley for which each of the books were primarily intended to serve as a text-book was somewhat special and elaborate compared with countries outside that valley, the defendant's book in so for as it is written in ; a much simpler style, and is embellished, with numerous maps and displays a more attractive typography and possesses a far better get-up. He has on a very careful consideration of all these matters recorded his view that in such circumstances, so far as the general plan, style and arrangement is concerned, the plaintiff has no copyright therein. Learned Advocate for the respondent has, endeavoured to show that the learned Judges view on this matter, is not correct, but we are not prepared to take any different view.

(3.) The learned Judge, however, has held that as regards certain passages which he has specified in his judgment, they are very similar as they appear in the two books, the correspondences are too many and too striking to be attributable to chance or to community of subject-matter or to reminiscences unconsciously left in the authors mind from the studies he had made or the information i.e., has collected. In as much as the defendant admitted that he had read the plaintiff's book before writing his own and also because it is apparent that the defendant had written his book with the deliberate object of making it an improvement on the plaintiff's book and so must have had the plaintiff's book before him when writing his own, the learned Judge has come to the conclusion that in respect of those passages the plaintiff has committed plagiarism, lifting or appropriating to his own use phrases and statements from the plaintiff's book without taking the trouble to frame them or put them together by independent thinking and enquiry. In this view of the matter the learned Judge has made a decree in plaintiff's favour which runs thus: The suit is decreed modifiedly and plaintiff's copyright is found to have been infringed to a limited extent, vie., to the extent of the passages specified below, and plaintiff is allowed Hs. 10 as damages, and defendant is called upon to remove all traces of actual copying or colourable imitation from the said passages in any future edition of his book that he may publish. Considering all things, plaintiff will got his full costs from the defendant. The passages in question are Nos. 1--6 generally, and 4 and 5 in particular, 11-- 14, 20, 21, 22, 45 46, 48 and 54-57 of the list filed by the plaintiff, but as these passages are to be found in the original books. I mean the fourth edition of plaintiff's book and the first edition of defendant s. Except as provided above, plaintiff's claim to other reliefs is rejected.