MANU/DE/0313/1976

Equivalent Citation: (1977)79PLR181

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Suit No. 122 of 1974
Decided On: 28.05.1976
Appellants: Manohar Lal Gupta
Vs.
Respondent: State of Haryana and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
M.S. Joshi, J.
Case Note:
Intellectual Property Right - Infringement of Copy Right - Section 14 of
Copyright Act, 1957 - Whether plaintiff has any copyright in book 'A' and
whether defendants or any of them have infringed same by printing or
publishing book 'B'? - Held, plaintiff is author of 'Greh Lekha Aur Gharelu
Ankganit' (Household Accounts and Domestic Arithmetic) issued in Hindi for
first time in May 1971 - This book was published by Multan Kitabghar, Hansi
and was prescribed by Board of School Education Haryana for Metric/Higher
Secondary Part I examinations for years 1971 and 1972 - Board dropped it
from list of its prescribed books in July 1972 and brought out its own
'Matriculation Gharelu Ankganit' in 1973 with an edition of 25,000 copies - It
has been urged on behalf of Board that plaintiff's book was not covered by
provisions of Act and proceedings launched by him are not, therefore,
maintainable - In background of statutory provisions it is to be seen whether
Exhibit P-7 violates in any manner plaintiff's copyright in Exhibit P-6 - In
specimen of a statement of account at page 128 of Exhibit P-7 all five dates
tally with corresponding entry at page 135 of Exhibit P-6 and so numbers of
bills, 2245, 2350, 2637, 3845 and 6724, and amounts involved -There can be
no question of its having happened by accident - Similar state of affairs is
disclosed by portions of two books marked as Nos. 3, 5 (item No. 4), 7, 8, 11,
37, 68, 69, 75, 76 and 85 and this inventory is by no means exhaustive -
Question of answer answered in favour of Plaintiff - Keeping whole situation
in view this court would order rendition of accounts into profits made by
Board by publication and sale of three editions of Exhibit P-7 and payment of
20% thereof to plaintiff - Plaintiff's costs of these proceedings shall be borne
by Board. [10], [11], [18],[19], [23],[28]
JUDGMENT
M.S. Joshi, J.
1. As revealed by his plaint, the plaintiff Manohar Lal Gupta's case in this suit against
the State of Haryana the Board of School Education Haryana (hereinafter referred to as
"the Board") and the Collector of Ambala is that he is a retired school teacher and
author copyright holder of the book "Greh Lekha Aur Gharelu Ankganit" (Household
Accounts and Domestic Arithmetic). This book was completed and published for the first
time in 1971 and approved and prescribed by the Board for the Matriculation classes in

10-09-2021 (Page 1 of 11) www.manupatra.com HNLU Raipur

1971. It was continued for the next year, 1972, as well but was subsequently dropped
from the list of prescribed books. In July 1973 the plaintiff came to know that the Board
had published a book under the title "Matriculation Gharelu Ankganit" in Hindi and most
of the contents of this book had been copied from the plaintiff's book. Not only
headings, sub-headings, order of presentation of material had been taken from the
plaintiff's book, even the errors which had found placed in his book were repeated in
the defendants' publication. The plaintiff had given rates of electricity, telephone
charges, licence fees and other rates and taxes current at this time of its publication in
his book, the Board's book was brought out in 1973 and by that time the aforesaid rates
had undergone a change but in the offending book the information provided by the
plaintiff's book was reproduced. Even illustrative statements, forms and accounts had
been copied from his compilation. Some of the glaring instances of piracy were
specified in the schedule appended to the plaint and copies of the two books with
relevant portions underlined were also submitted. According to the plaintiff the
infringement of his copyright was deliberate and the same had harmed him. He sent a
registered letter to the Board on 12th August, 1973, and in response thereto the Board
through its letter dated 27th August, 1973 asked him to supply a copy of his book with
its portions alleged to have been copied duly marked. He sent a detailed reply to this
letter on 11th September, 1973 but heard nothing from the Board in that connection
thereafter. It was submitted that if the defendants were not restrained from infringing
the plaintiff's copy right an irreparable loss would accrue to him and no amount of
money would compensate him for it. It was further alleged that the defendants had
made illegal gains by publishing and selling the infringing book and they were liable,
therefore, for rendition of accounts into the profits made by them. The plaintiff
estimated that on going into the accounts he would be found entitled to recover Rs.
55,000/- approximately. It was in the end prayed that--
(a) permanent injunction restraining the defendants from printing, publishing
and selling the infringing book be issued;
(b) rendition of accounts into the profits earned by the defendants by the sale
of the infringing book be ordered and the amount so found due to the plaintiff
be awarded to him; and
(c) un-sold copies of the infringing book in possession and power of the
defendants and their agents, dealers, and stockists etc. along with blocks,
plates etc. used for printing of the book be handed over to the plaintiff for
destruction.
2 . Only defendant No. 2 filed a written-statement in the suit. The Board controverted
the plaintiff's allegations and averred that this Court had no territorial or other
jurisdiction to entertain the suit, that the plaintiff had not paid the requisite court fee on
the relief asked for and his suit was not for that reason maintainable, that defendants 1
and 3 were not necessary parties, that the suit was barred by various provisions of the
Copyright Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and the Copyright Rules,
1958, that the book had been got written by authors of great eminence (Y.L. Taneja and
Miss Raj Uppal) and nothing had been copied or reproduced in material or tangible form
from the plaintiffs book, that the plaintiff had no copyright in the alleged book 'Greh
Lekha Aur Gharelu Ankganit' and no harm had been caused to him. The plaintiff
reiterated his allegations in his replication.
The conflict in the pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues:--

10-09-2021 (Page 2 of 11) www.manupatra.com HNLU Raipur

 "1. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit?
2. Whether the court-fee affixed on the plaint is not sufficient?
3. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of defendants 1 and 3, and if so, to
what effect?
4 . Whether the plaintiff has any copyright in book 'A' and whether the
defendants or any of them have infringed the same by printing or publishing
book 'B'?
5 . Whether the registration of the plaintiff's copyright is bad for any reason,
and whether this matter can be gone into by this Court or has any effect on the
suit?
6. Relief"
Issue No. 1:
The onus of this issue was placed on the defendants and the same has remained
undischarged. Manohar Lal Gupta stated in the plaint to be a resident of 205-E, Dev
Nagar, Karol Bagh, Delhi and he gave exactly the same particulars of his residence at
the time of his evidence in the Court. In his notice dated 12th August, 1973 (Exhibit P.
12) under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, served on the 2nd defendant, he
claimed to be a resident of 205-E Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and in its reply the
Board did not challenge the fact of his residing at the aforesaid place. The plaintiff has
produced Exhibit P-11, extracts from the Register of Copyrights from the Copyright
Office of the Government of India, dated 15th November, 1972 and 205-E, Dev Nagar,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi, is mentioned therein as the "Present address" of the author.
'Manohar Lal C/o D.R. Bhatia, Retired Postmaster, Ballabhgarh, District Gurgaon, is of
course recorded as permanent address of the plaintiff in Exhibit P-11 but that address is
not relevant for the purposes of this case. Vide sub-section (1) of section 62 of the
Copyright Act, 1957 every suit arising under Chapter XII of the Act in respect of the
infringement of copyright in any work or the infringement of any other right conferred
by it shall be instituted in the District Court having jurisdiction' and vide subsection (2)
of the same Section. 'For the purposes of sub-section (1) a "district court having
jurisdiction" shall notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908, or any other law for the time being in force, include a District Court within the
local limits of whose jurisdiction, at the time of the institution of the suit or other
proceeding, the person instituting the suit or other proceeding or, where there are more
than one such persons, any of them actually and voluntarily resides or carries on
business or personally works for gain'. For the purposes of this section it is enough if
the plaintiff actually resides within the jurisdiction of the Court which is approached and
it is not necessary for his residence to be permanent. (See Mohan Singh v. Lajya Ram
MANU/PH/0072/1956 : AIR 1956 Pb. 188. I may repeat the defendants were required to
prove want of jurisdiction in this Court and not a word has been said by the one witness
examined by the Board that the plaintiff does not actually reside or work for gain in
Delhi.
3. It was alleged in the plaint, moreover, that the defendants' infringing hooks are sold
in Delhi and, therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to try the suit. The plaintiff testified
as his own witness that the objectionable book is being sold all over Haryana and Delhi
and the defendants have, their registered dealers in Delhi. Shri Ved Parkash Sharma,
the only witness appearing for the Board conceded that the Board has its registered

10-09-2021 (Page 3 of 11) www.manupatra.com HNLU Raipur

dealers in Delhi, but alleged that according to the Board's records it did not provide a
single copy of the book to them. Later on he modified this statement to say that of the
book to them. Later on he modified, this statement to say that no copy was provided to
the Board's registered dealers out of the first edition of 25,000 copies but he could not
make such commitment in respect of the second and the third editions. Statements of
P.W. 1 and D.W. 1 read together, therefore, lead to the conclusion that the second and
the third editions of the offending book have been sold in Delhi and copies of the first
edition too might possibly have been sold to customers through shopkeepers than those
formally registered with the Board. The Board has account books evidencing sales of its
publications and in the absence of then production it may be presumed that it sold
copies out of the first edition as well through its registered dealers. In the context there
will be no justification for holding that this Court lacks jurisdiction to dispose of the
suit. The issue is found in favour of the plaintiff.
Issue No. 2:
4 . It was pleaded by defendant No. 2 in para 2 of the preliminary objections that the
plaintiff had valued his suit at Rs. 55,300/- for purposes of jurisdiction and because
according to the law as laid down in the Suits Valuation Act read with the Court Fees'
Act the valuation of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction was the value for purposes of
court fee, the court fee paid by the plaintiff was inadequate and the plaint was,
therefore, liable to rejection under Order 7, rule 11, of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Reliance has been placed in the course of arguments on S. Rm. Ar. S. Sp. Sathappa
Chettiar v. S. Rm. Ar. Rm. Ramanathan Chettiar MANU/SC/0003/1957 : AIR 1958 SC
245, to support the aforesaid contention. The plaintiff has valued his relief in respect of
the infringement of the copyright and handing over of the unsold copies of the book,
blocks, plates etc. at Rs. 150/- each for purposes of court fee as well as jurisdiction
whereas in respect of the relief for rendition of accounts the plaint has, been valued at
Rs. 1,000/- for purposes of court fee and Rs. 55,000/- for purposes of jurisdiction. The
jurisdictional and court fee values fixed in respect of the first mentioned two reliefs
being identical the objection taken by the defendant evidently pertains to the relief for
accounts.
5. The relevant portions section 7 of the Court Fees' Act, 1870 read as under:--
"7. The amount of the fee payable under this Act in the suits next hereinafter
mentioned shall be computed as follows:--
***
(iv) In suits--
***
(f) for accounts--
according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the
plaint or memorandum of appeal.
In all suits the plaintiff shall state the amount at which he vines the
relief sought."
6. This suit belongs to the class of suits in which it is not possible for the plaintiff to
state precisely the value of the relief sought by him and the legislature has given him,

10-09-2021 (Page 4 of 11) www.manupatra.com HNLU Raipur

therefore, a right to place any valuation that he likes on the relief prayed for. In such
like matters the Court cannot substitute its own estimate for that of the plaintiff and
direct him to put on his relief a value different from the one fixed by him. It is provided
by section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act that the valuation of the suits given under sub-
section (iv) of section 7 of the Court Fees' Act is to be the same for purposes of court
fees as well as jurisdiction. The Supreme Court observed in S. Rm. Ar. S. Sp. Sathappa
Chettiar v. S. Rm. Ar, Rm. Ramanathan Chettiar MANU/SC/0003/1957 : AIR 1958 SC
245, that the effect of the provisions of section 8 is to make the value for the purpose
of jurisdiction dependent upon the value as determinable for computation of court-fees
and once the plaintiff exercises his option in fixing the value under section 7(iv) of the
Court Fees' Act the value so fixed determines the value for jurisdiction. In consequence
it is the amount at which the plaintiff has valued the relief sought for the purposes of
court fees which will determine the value for jurisdiction in the suit and not vice versa.
In view of the law thus enunciated the plea set up by the Board would appear to put the
cart before the horse. Its contention that because the plaintiff has specified Rs. 55,000/-
as the value of his relief for a counts for the purpose of jurisdiction he should pay court
fee on Rs. 55,000/- is absolutely untenable. It is within the discretion of the plaintiff to
fix the value for purposes of section 7(iv) (f) and the question of the plaint being
rejected because court fee has not been paid on Rs. 55,000/- stated as value for
purposes of jurisdiction cannot arise. It was held by this Court in Smt. Shiela Devi &
others v. Shri Kishan Lal Kalra MANU/DE/0073/1974 : ILR (1974) II Delhi 491, that
paragraph (iv) of section 7 of the Court Fees' Act gives a right to the plaintiff in any of
the suits mentioned in the clauses of that paragraph to place any valuation that he likes
on the relief he seeks, subject, however, to any rules made under section 9 of the Suits
Valuation Act and the Court has no power to interfere with the plaintiff's valuation.
7. The defendants' learned counsel took a somersault during arguments and urged that
because in view of the provisions of section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act the value in a
suit to which the said section applies has to be the same for purposes of court fee and
jurisdiction, the jurisdictional value of the plaintiff's suit for rendition of accounts
should be treated as Rs. 1,000/- (the value specified for purposes of court fee) and the
cause should be declared as not entertainable by this Court. Section 8 of the Suits
Valuation Act no doubt lays down that the valuation of suits covered by sub-section (iv)
of section 7 of the Court Fees' Act has to be the same for purposes of court fee and
jurisdiction, but section 9 of the first-mentioned Act empowers the High Court to make
rules concerning the valuation of suits mentioned in the section the subject-matter of
which is not capable of being specifically valued for purposes of the Court Fees' Act and
the Suits Valuation Act. Such rules were framed by the High Court of Punjab and the
same are applicable to the suit before us because of section 7 of the Delhi High Court
Act. Rule 4 of the said rules provides:--
"4. (i) Suits in which the plaintiff in the plaint seeks to recover the amount
which may be found due to the plaintiff on taking unsettled accounts between
him and the defendant;
(ii) Suits of either of the accounts described in Order XX, Rule 13 of the Code
of Civil Procedure:
Value for the purpose of Court-fee:--
(a) As determined by the Court-fees Act, 1870.
Value for the purpose of jurisdiction;--

10-09-2021 (Page 5 of 11) www.manupatra.com HNLU Raipur

 (b) For the purposes of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887, and the
Punjab Courts Act, 1918, as valued by the plaintiff in the plaint
subject to determination by the Court at any stage of the trial."
8 . Now in the suit under consideration the plaintiff has sought rendition of accounts
into the profits made by the defendant by the sale of the infringing book and decree for
the amount so found due to him and he has given Rs. 55,000/- as jurisdictional value
for the purposes of this relief. Rule 4 quoted above contemplates that in such like suits
value for the purpose of court-fee shall be as determined by the Court Fees' Act, 1870
and value for the purpose of jurisdiction for the purposes of Suits Valuation Act, 1887
as well as the Punjab Courts Act 1918, as valued by the plaintiff in the plaint subject to
determination by the Court at any stage of the trial. The two valuations need not
obviously be identical, they can be widely divergent. It was held in the case of Shiela
Devi and others (supra) that rules 3 and 4 of the Rules framed under section 9 of the
High Court of Punjab contemplate separate valuation for the purposes of court fee and
for the purposes of jurisdiction. There is no fault in the circumstances to be found with
the plaintiff's valuation in respect of court fee or jurisdiction.
Issue No. 3 :
9 . 'Matriculation Gharelu Ankganit,' publication and sale whereof is alleged by the
plaintiff to constitute infringement of his copyright, has been brought out by the Board
of School Education Haryana. This Board, as provided by Section 3(2) of the Haryana
Board of School Education Act, 1969 (Haryana Act No. II of 1969), is a body corporate
hiving perpetual succession and a common seal with power, subject to the provisions of
the said Act, to acquire, hold or dispose of property, and to contract, and may by that
name sue and be sued. The Board has its own fund constituted under section 15 of the
aforesaid Act and is for all practical purposes an autonomous body. In the
circumstances there was no occasion for the State of Haryana or the Collector of Ambala
being impleaded as defendants. They are not necessary parties.
Issue No. 4 :
10. The plaintiff is author of 'Grah. Lekha Aur Gharelu Ankganit' (Household Accounts
and Domestic Arithmetic) issued in Hindi for the first time in May 1971. This book was
published by Multan Kitabghar, Hansi and was prescribed by the Board of School
Education Haryana for Matric/Higher Secondary Part I examinations for the years 1971
and 1972. The Board dropped it from the list of its prescribed books in July 1972 and
brought out its own 'Matriculation Gharelu Ankganit' in 1973 with an edition of 25,000
copies. According to the plaintiff a substantial part of the last mentioned book was
copied from the book authorised by him and in this manner his copyright was violated.
The plaintiff has marked 100 and odd portions of the two books to furnish instances of
the way piracy has been committed. The Board has, course, denied that it has been
guilty of any breach of copyright, the entire material of its publication having been
claimed as original thought of the authors editors who were commissioned to compile
it.
11. It has been urged on behalf of the Board that the plaintiff's book was not covered
by the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957 and the proceedings launched by him are
not, therefore, maintainable. Vide section 14 (1) of the Act, 'copyright' means the
exclusive right, by virtue of, and subject to the provisions of, the said Act.--
(a) in the case of a literary, dramatic or musical work, to do and authorise the
doing of any of the following acts, namely;

10-09-2021 (Page 6 of 11) www.manupatra.com HNLU Raipur

 (i) to reproduce the work in any material form;
(ii) to publish the work;
** ** ** **
The defendant's contention is that the compilation of a book on household accounts and
domestic arithmetic is not a literary work, the plaintiff cannot, as such, have any
copyright in the book written by him and he can sue for no remedy provided by the Act
for the infringement of a copyright.
1 2 . 'Work', as provided by clauses (y) of section 2 of the Act, means any of the
following works, namely,--
(i) a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work;
(ii) a cinematograph film; and
(iii) a record. As per clause (o) of the same Section 'literary work' includes
tables and compilations.
1 3 . The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Third Edition, defines 'literary' as '1.
Pertaining to the letters of the alphabet, 2. Carried on by letters; epistolary, 3. Of or
pertaining to, or of the nature of, literature, polite learning, or books and written
compositions; pertaining to that kind of written composition which has value on account
of its qualities of form, 4. Versed in literature; spec. engaged in literature as a
profession. Of a society, etc.; Constituting of literary men.' In Webster's Third New
International Dictionary 'is stated to mean -- (i) literal, (ii) of, relating to, or having the
characteristics of humane learning, (iii) of, relating to, or having the characteristics of
literature, (iv) bookish, (v) of or relating to books, (vi) having a firsthand knowledge of
literature, (vii) of, relating to, or concerned with men of letters or with writing as a
profession.
1 4 . It was observed in University of London Press Ltd. v. University Tutorial Press
Limited 1916(2) Ch. 601, the words literary work cover work which is expressed in print
or writing, irrespective of the question whether the quality or style is high. According to
their Lordships the word 'literary' seems to be used in a sense somewhat similar to the
use of the word 'literature' in political or electioneering literature and refers to written
or printed matter. In this case examination papers were treated as constituting literary
work. The same view of the matter was taken in Jagdish Prasad Gupta v. Parmeshwar
Prasad Singh MANU/BH/0011/1966 : A.I.R. 1966 Pat. 33 and Agarwala Publishing
House, Khurja v. Board of High School and Intermediate Education U.P. Allahabad
MANU/UP/0031/1967 : A.I.R. 1967 All. 91. Copinger and Skone James commented in
their work on 'Copyright' (Eleventh Edition, page 71) 'so long as there is a sufficient
amount of skill and labour in constructing or selecting the material, no particular skill in
the literary form is needed' and it was noted that 'copyright has been conferred in
respect of newspaper telegrams, in the rules of a game, in the rules and coupon for a
football competition and in tallies for bridge parties'. W. Broome, J., observed in the
case of Agarwal Publishing House (supra) that the words 'literary works' in section 13
are not confined to works of literature in the commonly understood sense but include all
works expressed in writing whether they have any literary merit or not. In M/s. Mishra
Bandhu Karyalaya and others v. Shivratanlal Koshal MANU/MP/0046/1970 : A.I.R. 1970
M.P. 261, a book of arithmetic was treated as literary work. The definition of 'literary
work' provided by the Act embracing tables and compilations is comprehensive enough

10-09-2021 (Page 7 of 11) www.manupatra.com HNLU Raipur

to cover without a shadow of doubt books like the one in dispute. There is no substance
in the defendants' contention, therefore, that the plaintiff's book on household accounts
and domestic arithmetic was not a literary work and the plaintiff could not claim to have
a copyright therein.
15. It has been urged on behalf of the Board next that there is no originality involved in
the book produced by the plaintiff and hence no grievance can be made if the
defendant's book carries material similar to the one incorporated in the plaintiff's book.
As was aptly remarked in Copinger and Skone James' book on 'Copyright', (eleventh
edition, page 48) "copyright protection is given to literary, dramatic, musical and
artistic works and not to ideas and, therefore, it is original skill or labour in execution
and not originality of thought which is required. It is for this reason that mathematical
tables are protection, if their author has worked them out for himself, even though
identical tables have previously been published; although the idea or information
embodied in the tables is not novel the result of the author's labour of compilation is a
set of tables upon which the author has done original work".
16. Vide University of London Press Ltd. v. University Tutorial Press. Limited 1916(2)
Ch. 601, the word 'original' would not mean that the work must be the expression of
original or inventive thought and Copyright Acts are not concerned with the origin of
ideas, but with the expression of thought; which in the case of a 'literary work' would
signify expression of thought in print or writing. According to their Lordships of the
Privy Council (See Macmillan and Company, Limited v. K. and J. Cooper
MANU/PR/0175/1923 : AIR 1974 PC 75, "any new and original plan, arrangement or
compilation of material will entitle the author to copyright therein, whether the
materials themselves be old or new" and 'whosoever by his own skill, labour and
judgment writes a new work may have a copyright therein unless it be directly copied or
evasively imitated from another's work". Jaganmohan Reddy, J. (as his Lordship then
was), who delivered the judgment on behalf of the Court remarked in V. Errabhadrarao
and other v. B.N. Sharma MANU/AP/0218/1960 : AIR 1960 AP 415, that "By an original
composition we do not mean to convey that it is confined to a field which has never
been traversed hitherto by any other person or persons, either in respect of ideas or
material comprised therein....The originality which is required relates to the expression
of thought, and that the work should not be copied from another work, but should be
original from the author". Manohar Lal Gupta claims to have employed his skill, labour,
knowledge and experience in planning the book, in collecting the data required for it
and arranging its material under various headings and sub-headings and giving
expression to its subject-matter in his own distinctive style and this claim appears on
perusal of the compilation to be true to a large extent. The defendant's argument,
therefore, that the plaintiff's book is not an original literary work is totally devoid of
merit.
17. As provided by section 51 of the Act, copyright in a work shall be deemed to be
infringed--
"(a) when any person, without a licence granted by the owner of the copyright
or the Registrar of Copyrights under this Act for in contravention of the
conditions of a licence so granted or of any condition imposed by a competent
authority under this Act--
(i) does anything, the exclusive right to do which is by this Act
conferred upon the owner of the copyright, or

10-09-2021 (Page 8 of 11) www.manupatra.com HNLU Raipur

 (ii) * * *
(b) when any person--
(i) makes for sale or hire, or sells or lets for hire, or by way of trade
displays or offers for sale or hire, or
(ii) distributes either for the purpose of trade or to such an extent as to
affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright, or
***
any infringing copies of the work."
18. In the background of these statutory provisions it is to be seen whether Exhibit P-7
violates in any manner the plaintiff's copyright in Exhibit P-6.
19. In the specimen of a statement of account at page 128 of Exhibit P-7 all the five
dates, 27th March, 3rd April, 7th May, 2nd June and 17th July 1970, tally with the
corresponding entry at page 135 of Exhibit P-6 and so the numbers of the bills, 2245,
2350, 2637, 3845 and 6724, and the amounts involved Rs. 150.30, Rs. 15.62, Rs.
25.56, Rs. 57.37 and Rs. 135.56. There can be no question of its having happened by
accident.
20. At page 50 and 51 of Exhibit P-7 there is an illustration of personal account of a
certain house-holder maintained by a shopkeeper. The aforementioned house-holder is
said to have purchased a mat on 18th April and returned it on 20th April and to have
given a cheque drawn on the Punjab National Bank for Rs. 100/- on 20th April. Strange
as it may seem, that was exactly what had happened in the illustration of personal
account to be found at pages 48 to 50 of Exhibit P-6, the only difference being that in
the last-mentioned book the article purchased and returned was a 'durrie' and the name
of the Bank to which the cheque was addressed was not mentioned.
21. The plaintiff described the objects of preparing the family budget at pages 19-20 of
his book. In the offending publication this point was dealt with at page 17. I find on
perusal of the contents of the entry in the two books that for the words 'Greh Swamini',
'Tarah' and 'Rakam' figuring in Exhibit P-6 'Grehani, Prakar' and 'Rashi' have been used
in Exhibit P-7 and words 'Dhan Ke' have been added in the beginning of item No. 4,
otherwise the matter given in Exhibit P-7 is exact word for word copy of that in Exhibit
P-6. It is impossible to believe that the same ideas occurred to the authors of the two
books and they expressed those ideas in identical 130 or so words (without the
slightest variation in their arrangement) by chance.
2 2 . It could not again be a matter of co-incidence that the plaintiff addressed his
specimen business reply card to 'Messrs Atma Ram & Sons, Publishers and Booksellers,
Kashmere Gate, Delhi-6' and the defendants' author did the same. (See page 185 of
Exhibit P-6 and page 383 of Exhibit P-7) There are thousands and thousands of
business houses in India and the name of the same firm as was mentioned in the
plaintiff's book figuring in Exhibit P-7 constitutes proof positive of the fact that the
authors of the relevant reply card in Exhibit P-7 were leaning heavily on the plaintiff's
publication. Moreover, because the business reply card given in Exhibit P-7 was
addressed to a Delhi firm, the permission to make the postal charges due thereon
recoverable from the addressee was necessarily to be accorded by Delhi postal
authorities. Last it should "look out that their form was a copy of the plaintiff's form the

10-09-2021 (Page 9 of 11) www.manupatra.com HNLU Raipur

compilers of Exhibit P-7 changed the name of the relevant authority stated in Exhibit P-
6 'as G.P.O. Delhi' to G.P.O. Ambala'. Endeavouring to cover Up their tracks in this
manner they made a mockery of the whole form because the G.P.O. Ambala had no
competence to grant the requisite permission to Messrs Atma Ram & Sons of Kashmere
Gate, Delhi.
23. Similar state of affairs is disclosed by the portions of the two books marked as Nos.
3, 5 (item No. 4), 7, 8, 11, 37, 68, 69, 75, 76 and 85 and this inventory is by no means
exhaustive. The issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff.
Issue No. 5 :
24. The plaintiff has produced extracts from the Registrar of copyrights maintained by
the Copyright Office of the Government of India, dated 15th November 1972 (Exhibit P-
11) and it is proved thereby that the plaintiffs copyright in 'Gharelu Lekha Aur Gharelu
Ankganit' was duly registered. The defendant's counsel has not been able to point out
any defect in the said registration. Besides, if any person is aggrieved by any entry in
the said Register he has to approach the Registrar of Copyrights for the desired
rectification under section 50 of the Act. The issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff.
25. What remains to be seen is the relief which should be afforded to the plaintiff. He
did not ask for an ad interim injunction and thus knowingly permitted the Board of
continue selling the offending book during the more than two-years-long-course of
these proceedings and the Board brought out two more editions of the same, with a
print order for 20,000 copies of each time. The defendant's book has been prescribed
for Matriculation/Higher Secondary Examinations and instant stoppage of its sale is
likely to dislocate the education of a large number of students of those classes and
cause incalculable harm to them, in these circumstances I would issue a permanent
injunction restraining the Board from publishing any further edition of its book unless
and until all the material copied from the plaintiff's book has been expurgated. The
Board shall have the liberty, however, to exhaust its stock of the copies already printed.
The blocks, plates etc. used for the printing of Exhibit P-7 may not be handed over to
the plaintiff but the same shall not be used for reproduction of the subject-matter
copied from the plaintiff's book.
26. Although the plaintiff marked out no less than 100 and odd portions of Exhibit P-7
with a view to suggest that the same had been lifted from his own compilation but this
allegation, is not wholly true. The authors who prepared in its original shape Exhibit P.
7 for the Board did reproduce some matter from the plaintiff's compilation, as has been
found in the foregoing part of the judgment, but all the said portions are not tainted
with plagiarism. In the some cases the original matter was to be found in Government
publications and its translation by different persons could not be else than virtually
similar. When the concepts and ideas which are common heritage of all are to be
expressed in language suitable for secondary school students, the authors have to fall
back upon identical terminology. The total matter in Exhibit P-7 in respect whereof the
plaintiff's copy-right may be said to have been infringed would not constitute to my
mind even one-twelfth of the whole book.
27. It is not the plaintiff's case that because of the publication of 'Matriculation Gharelu
Ankganit' by the Board the sale of his own book has in any manner been hampered. His
book was dropped from the list of books prescribed for Haryana students and these
students could not have brought it even if Exhibit P-7 had not been published. That is
why he has not laid claim to any damages. The Board appointed two authors reputed to

10-09-2021 (Page 10 of 11) www.manupatra.com HNLU Raipur

be possessed of the requisite competence to compile a book of 'Gharelu Ankganit' for
the Matriculation/Higher Secondary students and it constituted a penal of three Editors
to ensure that the book satisfied the prescribed standard. It seems to have done its best
so far as discharge of its own responsibilities is concerned; if the people in whom it
reposed its confidence let it down, that is a different matter. The Board has been set up
by Haryana Government with the laudable object of serving public cause of education
and it cannot be insinuated that it violated the plaintiff' copyright deliberately to make
an easy book. The plaintiff's book was published by a private firm, Multan Kitab Ghar,
and he was to receive from it a royalty equivalent to ten per cent of the price of the
book. As has been noticed because his book was not prescribed for Haryana students, it
had no market within the territory of that State.
28. Keeping the whole situation in view I would order rendition of accounts into the
profits made by the Board by the publication and sale of three editions of Exhibit P-7
and the payment of 20% thereof to the plaintiff. Shri D.R. Dhamija, Advocate, is
appointed as a Commissioner for the examination of the aforesaid accounts. He shall
submit his report to the Court within three months. He shall be paid Rs. 400/- as his fee
by the plaintiff. The plaintiff's costs of these proceedings shall be borne by the Board.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

10-09-2021 (Page 11 of 11) www.manupatra.com HNLU Raipur