9911796707
TMI Blog1938 (11) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l his properties, moveable and immovable, to Savitri Devi and Savitri Devi was accordingly substituted as plain, tiff in place of Narain Datt. 2. There were two defendants in the suit. Defendant 1 was one B. Kishan Lal who was the proprietor of a press in Muttra called Bombay Bhushan Press, and defendant 2 was Shridhar Shiv Lai, Gyan Sagar Press, a firm of printers and publishers in Bombay. This firm was sued through one Pt. Janak Prasad Bajpai on the allegation that Janak Prasad had been, appointed receiver of the firm by a Court of law. Kishan Lal died during the trial in the Court below, and his son Dwarka Prasad was substituted in his place. It is a matter of admission that in the year 1929-1930 a fresh edition of the book was printed by Kishan Lal in his press and was published either by him or by defendant 2. The plaintiff's case was that the printing and the publication of this edition constituted an infringement of the copyright that he had in the book. The suit was con-tested by both the defendants mainly on the allegation that Datt Ram had assigned the copyright in the book in favour of Shridhar Shiv Lal, defendant 2, by means of an unregistered sale deed dated 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, there is a notice printed in which it is stated that defendant 2 was the assignee of the copyright in various books from Datt Ram It is also a fact that even on the outer cover of numerous copies, defendant 2 and not Kishan Lal is mentioned as publisher. It is therefore impossible to hold that Kishan Lal and not defendant 2 was the publisher of the edition in dispute. The question is however of no importance for, if the plaintiff is not proved to be the owner of the copyright, it is immaterial as to whether defendant 1 or defendant 2 published the book. 5. This brings us to the consideration of the question whether the sale-deed relied upon by the defendants was proved and whether the copyright in the book was validly assigned by that deed. The sale deed, as stated above, is dated 4th September 1905, and is to be found at p. 27 of the printed record. It purports to have been executed by Pt. Datt Ram and by it copyright in the book in question and 36 other books was assigned by Datt Ram in favour of defendant 2 in consideration of a sum of ₹ 1000. The deed is attested by two witnesses named V.M. Mone, a vakil of Bombay, and Ram Pratap. Mr. Mone was called as a witness b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upply to Narain Datt 1000 copies of Rasraj Sunder at cost price and this explanation is supported by letter Ex. 8. These letters there are do not in any way show that the sale deed was not acted upon. It is however necessary to examine the contention of the plaintiff that the copyright could be assigned only by means of a registered instrument. In support of this contention reliance is placed on Section 54, T.P. Act, which inter alia provides that a sale in the case of tangible immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing can be made only by a registered instrument. 8. It is argued that copyright is an intangible thing, and therefore it can be assigned only by a registered instrument. In our judgment there is no substance in this contention. There is no doubt abundant authority in support of the assertion that copyright is an intangible thing : vide Holland's Jurisprudence, Edn. 12, p. 213, and Salmond's Jurisprudence, Edn. 6, page 395. But it is equally clear that copyright is moveable and not immovable property, vide Salmond's Jurisprudence, p. 393, and in our judgment Section 54, T.P. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... movable property and Section 56 provides about marshalling by subsequent purchaser. The doctrine of marshalling can be applied only when there is a mortgage of immovable properties. If the Legislature had intended to provide for sales of moveable properties also by Chap. 3, one would have expected some provision in that chapter as regards the rights and liabilities of the buyer and seller of such properties, but that chapter is conspicuous by an absence of any such provision. We have, therefore no hesitation in holding that Section 54 has no application to the present case and that the copyright in dispute could be validly assigned by an unregistered instrument. 11. In England copyright is regarded as a chose in action : vide Halsbury's Laws of England, Edn. 2, Vol. 4, paras. 785 and 787, and Colonial Bank v. Whinney (1885) 30 Ch. D. 261 at p. 283. It was observed in this case that there being no word to denote incorporeal personal property, the meaning of the expression chosen in action was gradually extended for the purpose of denoting it, and Mr. Joshua Williams in his work on 'Personal Property' treats it as including even copyrights and patents. 12. On th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
