MOOT PROPOSITION

1) Copyright is the exclusive right of multiplying for sale copies of works of literature or
art allowed to the author thereof or his assignees.

2) Mrs. Akhila Rao wrote a book named “Didar Galpo” back in the year August, 1956
which discussed about short stories of grandma. She got her work registered under
Copyright act and ordered 1,000 copies from Neela Press but received only 100
copies. Upon enquiring about the remaining 900 undelivered copies, she came to
know that it was obtained by Ms. Sulekha who was proprietor of Seema Book Depot.

3) On the other hand, appellant made persistent effort by denying the fact that plaintiff
was not the original author of the book rather it was translated version of the book
which appellant herself wrote titled “Grandma’s Tale” and compilation of several
other articles of which the appellants were the authors. Grandma’s Tale was
translated not only in Bengali but had several translations of the book. Respondent
was alleged for making a translation of the book without acquiring any rights in it and
went to the extent of getting it published without taking any prior consent for the
same and even if she was the author, no copyright was acquired by her for the book.

4) When appellant saw her labor, skill and judgment towards the book going in vain she
took a step further to put a stop on it and ordered Neela Press to deliver the remaining
900 copies to her and ordered further 3000 copies to be printed of the same book in
June, 1957 at Sangam Press.

5) Additionally, respondent used to work under Ms. Sulekha and under fiduciary
relationship she was ordered by appellant to collect the copies of the book from
Seema Book Depot which was printed at the expense of appellant and the amount of
Rs. 221/- paid by the plaintiff to the Press was paid by her in her capacity as an agent
of the appellant.

1
6) The respondent underlined in her rebuttal that the book in question was not merely a
translation of the English edition, but also had considerably more material than the
volumes of which it was alleged to be a translation, a fact which was admitted in the
prologue of the book she wrote.

7) Trial Court held that the book in question was an original one and not a translated
version of Grandma’s Tale. It was further held that the copyright in the book vested
solely in the respondent and consequently the appellants had no right to transfer the
same and was entitled to claim damages from the appellants and consequently she is
entitled to get the sum of the book printed in 3000 copies at a cost of Rs. 280 each.
The amount of Rs. 221/- allegedly paid by the respondent as the appellants' agent was
not paid in that capacity; rather, she was paid on her own account, and the allegation
that the appellants paid for the other 900 copies was also found to be unproven.

8) Masagar Hanuman, P.W. 1., wrote a preface to that book in which he stated that he
initially thought the book was a word-for-word translation, but after reading it, he
discovered that it was not, and that while the author drew some materials from the
appellants' English work, he added many things from the surroundings and other
sources. “This is not only a translation of our book ‘Grandma’s Tale,'” says the
second appellant in his introduction to the book. It is correct to claim that facts have
been taken from it as is, with an attempt to develop them in order to make the book
more useful and fascinating. P.W. 1 also stated in his testimony that it is an original
work and not a translation, but later admitted in cross-examination that he had written
in the preface that the book had originally appeared in English and then in Bengali,
that he approved of the translation, and that he had also stated in it that this book was
written on the orders of Ms. Sulekha. The 1st respondent as P.W. 2, supported his case
that it was an original composition and though he was cross-examined in detail he was
able to sustain his assertion to show by various passages that the book was not a mere
translation and that the several articles written by him were also incorporated therein.
This was also stated by P.W. 5, Dr. Anna Venular, who stated that the articles written
by the plaintiff while in Bezwada, about which he knew, were also included in the
book. He also supported the case of the 1st respondent that the book is not a
translation, nor an adaption, but an original work.

2
 9) After the appeal was filed in the High Court and when the decree was sought to be
executed against the 2nd respondent (3rd defendant), he contended to set aside the
decree against heron the ground that no summon was served on herein the suit and not
having any notice thereof the decree was not binding on him. By a judgment by the
Civil Court, it was declared that the decree obtained by the plaintiff, which was the
subject-matter, to be void and unenforceable against the plaintiff. She was
accordingly restrained from executing the decree against the 3 rd defendant by the issue
of a permanent injunction and was directed to pay the costs of the suit.

10) The advocate for the second respondent urged that she was neither a party, nor a
necessary party to the appeal and consequently requested that her name be struck off
from the array of respondents. The appellants contested this prayer and stated that if
the appeal is dismissed against the 2nd respondent, they will be responsible for her
costs which they were prepared to pay.

The various Learned Senior Counsels and Counsels appearing for the parties today have
confirmed that the following amongst other issues will be raised on the next date of hearing,
although not necessarily in this order:

i. Whether the book “Grandma’s Tale” is an original composition of the 1 st respondent

or a mere translation of the book.
ii. Whether, the order for the printing of the 1,000 copies was placed by the respondent
and paid for by her as alleged.
iii. Whether the name of the 1st respondent as to the author of the book was merely
fictitious.

NOTE

Please note that the laws are pari materia to the laws of Union of India.