1938 (11) TMI 25 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Dispute over copyright ownership.
2. Alleged assignment of copyright.
3. Validity of an unregistered sale deed for copyright assignment.
4. Evidence supporting the assignment.
5. Applicability of Section 54, Transfer of Property Act to copyright.
6. Classification of copyright as movable or immovable property.
7. Requirement of registration for copyright assignment under Indian law.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Dispute over copyright ownership:
The litigation centered on the copyright of a Hindi book named "Abhinava Nighantu," originally authored by Chaubey Datt Ram. The plaintiff, Savitri Devi, claimed the copyright through inheritance from her predecessor, Narain Datt, who was the son of Datt Ram. The plaintiff sought a perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from printing and publishing the book, alleging copyright infringement.

2. Alleged assignment of copyright:
The defendants argued that Datt Ram had assigned the copyright of the book to defendant 2, Shridhar Shiv Lal, through an unregistered sale deed dated 4th September 1905. The plaintiff contested the authenticity of this assignment, labeling the sale deed as "fraudulent and fictitious" and "without any consideration."

3. Validity of an unregistered sale deed for copyright assignment:
The plaintiff contended that the assignment of copyright required a registered instrument under the law. However, the court found that the sale deed executed by Datt Ram was valid even though it was unregistered. It was held that the registration of such a deed was not compulsory for the assignment of copyright.

4. Evidence supporting the assignment:
The court examined the evidence presented, including the testimony of Mr. Mone, who attested the sale deed and confirmed its execution by Datt Ram. The plaintiff did not cross-examine Mr. Mone, leaving his testimony unchallenged. Additionally, the court noted that defendant 2 had printed and published several books from the list of 37 books mentioned in the sale deed, indicating that the sale deed was acted upon.

5. Applicability of Section 54, Transfer of Property Act to copyright:
The plaintiff argued that copyright, being an "intangible thing," required a registered instrument for assignment under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. The court rejected this argument, clarifying that Section 54 applies to immovable property and not to movable property like copyright.

6. Classification of copyright as movable or immovable property:
The court referenced authoritative texts and concluded that copyright is movable property. It emphasized that the Transfer of Property Act's provisions for sales, mortgages, and leases pertain to immovable property, and the chapter headings in the Act support this distinction.

7. Requirement of registration for copyright assignment under Indian law:
The court examined historical and contemporary legislation on copyright, including Act 20 of 1847 and the Indian Copyright Act of 1914. It found no statutory requirement for the compulsory registration of copyright assignments. The court noted that both the English and Indian copyright laws allowed for the assignment of copyright through a written instrument signed by the owner or their authorized agent, without mandating registration.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the validity of the unregistered sale deed and confirming that the copyright in question had been validly assigned to defendant 2. The plaintiff's suit was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the defendants.