R.G.ANAND versus M/S. DELUX FILMS & ORS.

R.G.ANAND

M/S. DELUX FILMS & ORS.

August 18, 1978

[MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JASWANT SINGH AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ.t

!nfrfngnnent of copyright in play in fifn1-What are the tests--JV hcc!:er copy."i}.!ht can be clahned in theme.

Suit for da111ages for infringenient of copyright-What are the principles.

The appellant-plaintiff is a, playwright, dramatist and producer of stage plays. The appellant had written and produced number of plays. The subject matter of the appeal however, is the pl2.y entitled 'Hum Hindustani'. This play was written by him in the year 1953 and was enacted in the year 1954 alld thereafter the play proved to be popular. In November 1954 the appellant received letter from the second defendant-Mr. 11ohan Sehgal requesting the appellant to supply copy of the play so that he could consider the desirability Of making film on it. Therea-fter, the appellant and defendant No. 2 met at Delhi. 111 May, 1955 the second defendant announced the production of a.motion picture entitled "New Delhi". The picture v.'aS released in Delhi in September 1956. The appellant saw the picture.

The appellant filed suit alleging that the film "New Delhi" was entirely based upon the play "Hum Hindustani", tha-t the play was narrated by the appel· lant to defendant No. 2 and he dishonestly imitated the same in his film and thus committed an act of piracy as to result in violation of the copy right of the plairttiff. The appellant, therefore, filed the suit for damages, for decree for a·:counts of the profits made by the defendant and decree for permanent ir..· junction against the defendants restraining them from exhibiting the film. The suit was contested by the defendants. The defendants pleaded that defcndar.t No. 2 is film director and producer and director of Delux: Films defendant No. 1 that at the instance of common friend Mr. G&rgi the defendant No. 2 met the appel1ant and saw the script of the play, that the play was inadequ8te for the purpose of making of full length commercial motion picture. The defen-dants contended that there could be no copy right so far as the subject of pro-vincialism is concerned which can be used or adopted by anybcxly in his O\Vn way. The defendants further contended that the motion picture was quite diffe· rent from the play both in contents, spirit and climax. The mere fact of some similarities between the films and the play could be explained by the fact tli.at the ideai provincialism was the common source of the play as also of the film.

The trial court r84ised several issues and came to the co[1].1clusion that the appel· lant v.[1]as the owner of the copy right in 'Hum Hindustani' but there 'vas no viola-tion of copy right of the appellant.

Thereafter the appellant filed an appca-1 in the Delhi High Court. Division Bench of the Delhi High Court upheld the decree dismissing the appellant's suit.

The counsel for the appe11ant contended ( 1) that the principles enunicated and the legal inference drawn by the courts Oelo\\-' are against the settled legal principles laid down by the courts in England, America and India (2) the two

coufts have not fully understood the imports of the violation of copy-righ~ parti~ -cularly when the similarities between the play and the film are so close that would lead to the irresistible inference and unmistakable impression that the film is nothing but an imitation of the play.

The counsel for the respondents submitted ( 1) that the two courts below haive applied the law correctly. (2) This Hon'ble Court may not enter into the merits in view of the concurrent findings of fact given by the two courts. (3) Even on the facts found it is manifest that there. is vast difference both in the spirit and the contents between the play and the film.

Dismissing the appeal by special leave the Court

HELD: (a) In order to appreciate the argument of the parties the court dis· cussed the law on the subject. At tt1e time ¥-'hen the cause of action arose in the present suit, the Indian Parliament had not made any Jaw govemiiig copY· right violation and therefore the court relied on the old law passed by the British P&rliament viz .. the Copyright Act of 1911. S. I sub-sec. (2)(d) defines copy-right as including in the case of literary, dramatic or musk:al work, to make any record, performed roll, cinematograph film, or other contrivance by means of which the \vork may be mechanically performed or delivered. S. 2(i) defines that copj;right in work shall be deemed to be infringed by any person who without the consent of the owner of the copyright, does anything, the sole right to do which is by this Act conferred on the owner of the copyright. The play written by the appellant falls \Vithin the definition of copyright. [229 D·R 230 A-Bl

The following is summary of the decided cases in England, An1erica and India on the question of copyright.

1. There can be no copyright in an idea, subject matter, themes, plots or historical or legendary facts and violatieo.1 of the copyright in such cases is con· fined to the form, manner and arrangement and expression of the idea by the .author of the copy-righted work. [248 H, 249 A)

2. Where the same idea is being developed in different manner, it is mani· f€st that the source being common, similarities are bound to occur. In such case the courts should determine ·whether or not the similarities are oii fuiiaa-mental or substantial aspects of the mode of expression adopted in the copyrighted work. If the defendant's work is nothing but literal imitation of the cooy· righted work with some variations here and there it would amount to violation of the copyright. Jn other words, in order to be actioniible the copy must be substantial and material one which at once leads to the conclusion that the defendant is guilty of an act of piracy. [249 A-C]

3. One of the surest and the sa.fest test to determine whether or not there has been violation of copyright is to see if the reader, spectator or the viewer after having read or seen both the works is clearly of the opinion and gets an unrnis· takable impression that the subsequent work appears to be copy of the original.

[249 C·Dl

4. Where the theme is the same but is presented a·Ild treated differently so tf~t the subsequent work becomes completely new work, no question of violation of copyright arises. [249 DJ

5. Where however apart from the similarities -appearing in the two ¥.--brks there are also material and broad dissimilarities which negative the intention to copy the original aind the coincidences appe_aring in the t¥lO works are clearly incidental no infringement of the copyright comes into existence. [249 EJ

6. As violation of copyright amounts to an act of piracy it must be proved by clear and cogent evidence after applying the v21rious tests laid down by decided cases. [249 F]

7. Where however the question is of the viol<'ltion of the copyright of stage play by film producer or Director the task of the plaintiff becomes n10re difficult to prove piracy. It is manifest that unlike stage play film has much broader prospective, wider field and bigger Mckground where the defen-dants can by introducing variety of incidents give colour and complex1on different from the manner in which the copyrighted work hasi expressed the idea. Even so, if the viewer after seeing the film gets totality of impression that the film is by and large copy of the origina•l play, violation of the copynght may be said to be proved. [249 F-H]

Hanfstaengl v. W. H. Smith & Sons, [1905] I Chancery Division 519; Bobbs-Aferill Co. v. lsdor Straus and Nathan Strau~, 210 US 339; West Francis, (1822) I & Ald. 737, 743; Ladbroke (Football) Ltd. v. William Hill (Foot-boll) Ltd. (1964) I All. E.R. 465; Corelli v. Gray, 29 T.L.R. 570; Hawkes & Son (Loudon) Ltd. v. Paramount Film Service Ltd., (1934) I Ch. D. 593; Harman Pictures N. V. v. Osborne & Ors., (1967) 1 W.L.R. 723; Donoghue v. Allied Newspapers Ltd. (1937) 3 All. E.R. 503; Bohl & Anr. v. Palace Theatre (Ltd.) & Aw. 28 T.L.R. 72; Tate v. Fullbrook, 77 Law Journal Reports 577; Frederick B. C-hatterton & Benjamin Webster v. Joseph Arrwld Cave, (1878) 3 A.C. 483; Sheldon v, Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp., 81 2d 49; Shipnzan v. R.K.O. Radio Pictures, 100 2d 533, Michael V. Moretti v. People .of the State of lllionois, 248 2d 799=356 U.S. 947, Warner Bros. Pictures v. Columbz'a Broadcasting System, 216 2d 945; Otto Elsenchinil v. Fawcett Publications, 246 2d 598; Dorsey v. Old Surety Life lns.. Co., 9& F. 2d 872; Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v. Stonesifer, 140 2d 579; Oliver 1-Vendel Holmes v. George D. Hurst, 174 U.S. 82; .i'1acmillan & Co. Ltd. v. K. & J. Cooper, 51 I.A. 109; Florence Deeb v. H. G. Wells & Ors., 60 I.A. 26; N. T. Raghunathan & Anr. v. All India Reporter Ltd .• ' Bombay, A.I.R. 1971 Born. 48, K. R. Venugopala Sarma v. Sangu Ganesan, 1972 Cr. L.J. 1098; The Daily Calendar Supp/yin~ Buteau, Sivakasi v. The United Concern, A.LR. 1967 Mad. 381; Hantsiaenql v. Bains & Co., 1895 A.C. 20 (25); C. Gunniah & Co. v. Balrafi & Co., A.l.R. 1961 Mad. It!; Mohendra Ghundra Nath Ghosh & Ors. v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1928 Cw. 359; S. K. Dutt v. Law Book Co. & Ors., A.LR. 1954 All. 570; Ramesh Clwwdhry & Ors. v. Kh. Ali Mohammad Nowsheri & Ors., AIR 1965 J. & K.101 and Mohini Mohan Singh & Ors. v. Sita Nath Bosak, AIR 1931 Cal. 238; referred

The learned trial Judge who had the advantage of seeing the picture was of the opinion that the film taken as whole is quite different from the play written by the appellant. This Court also got the play read to the learned Judges and the learned Judges also saw the film. The Court came to the conclusion that the essential features of the pla.y are as under: [250 A-B, 251 G]

1. That the central idea of the play is based on provincialism and pa.rochia-lism. [251 G]

2. The evils of provincialism are illustrated by the cordial relations of the two families being marred because of an apprehended inarriage tie which acco1d-ing to both the families was not possible where they belonged to different States.

[251 H, 252 Al

3. That the Madrasi• boy Amni is coward and in spite of his profound love for Chander he does not. muster sufficient courage to talk the matter out with. his parents. [252 A-BJ

4. That in sheer desperation while the parents of the families are· trying to arrange match for the couple belonging to qie same State Arnni and Chander enter into suicidal poct and write letters tO! their parents intimating their inten-tion. [252 B-C]

5. It was only after the letters are perused by the parents that they realise the horror of parochialism and are repentant for having 3.cted so foolishly.

foolishly. [252 CJ

6. That after this realisation comes the mMried couple Amni and Chander appear before the, pa.rents and thus all is well that ends well. [252 DJ

The <:ourt came to the conclusion that the essential features of the film are as under:-

( 1) 1 'wo aspects of provincialism viz. the role of provincialism in rega.rd to marriage and in regard to renting out accommodation (2) Evils of caste ripden society, and (3) the evils of dowry. [255 H]

lt is true that there are following similarities in the two. [256 A]

( i) B•efore the actual stage play, the producer gives ai narrative. He states that although we describe ourselves as Hindustanis we are not really Hindustanis. He questions the audience as to what they are and various voices are heard. To say in their own provincial language that they are Punjabis, BengaliS, GujaratfS, Marathas, Madrasis, Sindhis etc. In the said Film the same idei is conveyed and the hero of the- picture is shown searching for house in New Delhi and wherever he goes he is confronted by landlord who describes hirriself not as Hindustani but as Punjabi, Bengali, Gujairati, Marathi, Madarasi or Sindhi. [256 C-DJ (ii) Both the said play and the said film deal with the subject of Provin-cialism. [256 El P (iii) Both the said play and the said film evolve drama around the lives of two facilities, one Punjabi and the other Madrasi family. [256 EJ · (iv) In both the said play and the said film the name of tho M'adrasi father is Subramanyam .[256 F]

(v) Both the said play and the said film have their locale in New Delhi. [256 Fl

(vii) Both the said play and the said film show the disruption of cordial rela-tions as soon as the heads of the families discover the existence of love affair between their children. [256 G) · (viii) In both the said play and the said film, both the p&rents warn their respective children not to have anything to do with each other on pain of cor-poral punishment. [256 HJ.

(ix) The entire dialogue in both the said play and the said film before and -afte:r the disruption is based upon the superiority of the inhabitants ot one Pro-vin,:e over the inhabitants of the others. (257 A]

(x) In both the said play and the said fil!ll the girl is sho\vn to be fond ot mus1ic and dancing. f257 Bl

(xi) In both the said play and the said filn1 the hero is shown as co\vard to the extent that he has not the courage to go to his parents and persuade them to permit him to marry girl hailing from another Province. [257 B-C]

(xii) Both in the said play and in the said film, \Vhen the parents of the girl are discussing marrying her off to some body the girl is listening to the dialogue from behind curtain. Thereafter the girl runs to the boy and explairis the sttu-ation to him. [257 Cl

(xiii) In both the said play and the said film, the girl writes letter ot suicide. [257 DJ

(xiv) In the sa·id play reconcili"ation takes place \vhen the children of the two families, who were in love, go out to commit suicide by drowning .;!(C., whereas in the said film, it is only the daughter who goes out to commit suicue I by drovn1i[1],1g herself in the Ja.muna. [257 D-E]

(xv) In the said play the children are stopped from committing suicide by an astrologer 'vhereas in the said film the girl is stopped from comn1itting suicide by friend of the family. [257 E-F]

(xvi) In the said play reconciliation betv.·een the two families take5 pla.ce· only after they have experienced the shock of their children committing suicide on account of their provincial feelings whereas in the film, the father of lhe girl realised his 111istake after experiencing the shock of his daughter committing suicide. [257 F-Gl

(xvii) In both the said play and the said film, stress is la-id on the fact that although India is one country, yet there is acute feeling of provincialism between persons hailing from its various States even though they \rork together '.lnd Jive as neighbours. [257 G]

(xviii) Both in the said plav and in the said film. even the dil\ioguc centres around the same subject of provincialism. [257 HJ

However, the Court found following dissimilarities :-

(i) In the play provincialism comes on the surface only 'vhen the question of marriage of Arnni with Chander crops up but in the picture it is the starting point of the story when Anand goes around from door to door in search of accommodation but is refused the same because he does not belong to the State from which the landlord hails as result thereof Anand has to masquerade himself as 1'.fadrasi. This would, therefore, show that the treatment of the subject of provincialism in the film is quite different from tha.t in the play and is actually new theme which is not developed or stressed in the play. [258 D-FJ

(ii) Similarly, in the play the two families are fully aware of the identity of each other whereas in the film they are not and in fact it is only when the dance performance of Janki and Anand is staged that the identity of the two families

is disclosed which forms one of the important climaxes of the film. Thus, the idea of provincia-lism itself is presented in manner or form quite different from that adopted in the play. [258 F-GJ

Thus, the

(iii) In the film there is no suicidal pact between the lovers but only suicide note is left by Janki whereas in the play both the lovers decide to end their lives and enter into suicidal pact and leave suicide note to this effect. Furthermore, while in the play Amni and Chunder get married and then appenr before the parents in the picture the story takes completely different turn with the inter-1;ention of Sadhu Ram who does not 2.llow J anki to commit suicide but keeps her with him disguised as his niece r..nd the final climax is reached in the la"it scene when Janki's real identity is disclosed and Subra•maniam also finds out that his daughter is alive. [258 H, 259 A-BJ

(iv) The story in the play revolves around only two families, namely, the Punjabi and the: Madrasi families but in the film there are three ,important fnmi-lies, namely, the Punj~bi family, the Madrasi family and the Bengali family and very great stress is laid down in the film on the role played by Ashok Banerjee of the fu:ngali family who makes supreme sacrifice at the end which turns the tide and brings about complete revolution in the mind and ideology of Daulat Ram. [259 B-DJ

( v) The film depicts the evil of ca-ste ridden society and exposes the hollow4 ness of such society when in spite of repeated reque"its no member of the brotherhood of Daulat Ram comes to his rescue and ultimately it is left to Ashok Banerjee to retrieve the situation. This aspect of the matter is completely absent in the play. [259 D-EJ (vi) The film depicts another important social evil, namely, the evll ot dowry which also appea.rs to be the climax of the story of the filn1 and the horrors of dowry ar~ exhibited and demonstrated in very practical and force-ful fashion. The play however does not deal v.·ith this aspect at all. The aspect'i n1entione<l above \\hich are absent from the plr.•y are not mere surplusage Or en1bellishrnents in the story of the film but are in1portant and substantial part of the story. [259 E-G]

The Court came to the conclusion that the number of similarities by them-~elves are not sufficient to raise an inference of colourable imit<llion. The sin1ilarities arc trivia·} and touch insignificant points and do not appear to be of sub"itantial nature. The appellant has failed to prove that the defendants com-mitted rnlourable imitation of the play. [259 G-H, 260 BJ

Applying the principles mentioned above to determine whether in this partt-cular case there. has been ai violation of the copy right, the Court c-ame to the conclusion that the film produced by the defendants cannot be said to be substantial or material copy of the play written by the plaintiff. The treatment of the film and the manner of its presentation on the screen is quite different from the play written by the appellant at the stage. No prudent person can get the impression that the film appears to be copy of the original play nor is there anything to show that the film is substantial and material copy of the play. At the most the central idea of the play viz. proVincia.lism is undoubtedly the sUbject matter of the film along with other ideas also. It is well settled that mere ide~ cannot be the subject matter of copy right. [260 G-H, 261 A-Bl

The two courts of fact having considered the entire evidence, circumstaiiceS and materials before them have come to a. finding of fact that defeD.dants com-mitted no violation of the copyright. This Court would be slow to disturb the findings of fact arrived at by the courts below particularly when after having gone through the entire evidence the court finds that the judgments of the court below are absolutely correct. [261 C-Dl

(Jaswant Singh, I. concurring)

On caireful comparison of the script of the plaintiff's copyright play with the film, although one does not fail to discern fe\v resemblances and similari-ties between the play and the film, the said resemblances are not rriateria1 or substantial and the degree of similarities is not such as to lead one to think that the film taken as whole constitutes an unfair appropriation of the appellant's copyright work. In fact large majority of material incidents, episodes and dramatic situations portrayed by defendants t and 2 in their afOresaid filn1 are substantially different from the plaintiff's protected work and the two social evils viz. coote system and dowry system sought to be exposed and eradicated by defendants 1 and 2 by means of motion film, do not figure at all Iii the appel-lanfs play. There has been no breach on the part of the defendants of the appellant's copyright. [261 G-H, 262 A]

(Pathak, J. concurring)

It appears from comparison of the script of the pla.y 'Hum Hindustani' and the script of the film 'New Delhi' thlit the authors of the film have been influenced to degree by the salient features of the Plot set forth in the play script. There can be little doubt from the evidence that the authors of the film script were aware of the scheme of the play. But, the story portrayed by the film tnirvels beyond the plot delin~ated in the play. The theme of provin-cial pa.rochialism is illustrated only in the opposition to relationship by marriage between. two families hailing from different .parts of the country. In the film the theme is also illustrated by the hostile attitude of proprietors· of lodging accommodation towards prospective lodgeis who do not belong to the same provincial community. The plot then extends to the evils of the dowry system whi'Ch is theme independent of provincia.1 parochialism. There <ire still other themes embraced ·within the plot of the film. The question can arise whether there is an infringement of copyright even though the essential features Of the play can be said to correspond to part only of the plot of the film. In the attempt to show that he is not guilty of infringement of copy right it is always possible for person intending to take advantage of the intellectbal efforts and labour of another to so develop his own product that it covers Wider field than the area included within the scope of the earlier product and in the common area covered by the two productions to introduce changes in order to disguise the attempt at plagiarism. If reappraisal of the facts in the present case were open to this Court, the Court perhaps would have differed from the view taken on the facts by the High Court but in view of the concurrent findings of the two courts below to the effect that the appellant's copy right has iiot been in-fringed this Court is extremely reluctant to interfere with the concurrent fl.rid-ings of fact reached by the Courts below. In another, and perhaps clearer case it may be necessary for this Court to interfere and remove the impression which nlay have. gained ground that the copy right belonging to an author can be readily infringed by making immaterial changes, introducing in substantial differences and enlarging the scope of the original theme so that veil of appa-

rent dissimilarity is thrown around the work now produced. The court will look strictly at not only blatant examples of copying but also at reprehensible attempts at colourable imitation. [262 B-H, 263 A·CJ

OvIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2030 of 1968.

Appeal by special leave from the Jud$ffient and Decree dated 23-5-1968 of the Delhi High Court at New Delhi in R.F.A. No. 147D of 19611.

S. N. Andley, Mahinder Narain and Rameshwar Na(h,

for the

Appellant.

Hardyal Hardy, H. S. Parihar and I. N. Shroff, for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.

The following Judgments were delivered :

FAZAL Au, J.-This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 23rd May, 1967 affirming the decree of the District Judge, Delhi and dismissing the plaintiff's suit for damages against the defendants on the ground that they had viola!-ed the copyrighted work of the plaintiff which was drama called 'Hum Hindustani'.

. The facts have been succinctly stated by the District Judge in his judgment and summarised by the High Court, and, therefore, it is not necessary for us to repeat the same all over again. We would, however, like to give brief resume of some of the striking facts in the case which may be germane for the purpose of deciding the important issues involved in this appeal. We might mention here that the High Court as also the District Judge negatived the plaintiff's claim and prima facie the appeal appears to be concluded, by finding of fact, but it was rightly argued by Mr. Andley appearing for the appellant that the principles of violation of copy-right in the instant appeal have to be applied on the facts found and the inferences from proved facts drawn by the High Court which is doubtless question of law and more particularly as there is no clear authority of this Court on the subject, we should be persuaded to go into this question without entering into findings of facts. Having heard coun'sel for the parties, we felt that as the case is one of first impression and needs to be decided by this Court, we should enter into the merits on the basis of the facts found and infer-ences drawn by the High Court and the District Judge. It is true that both the Distdct Judge and the High Court have relied upon some well established principles to determine whether or not in particular case violation ()f copy right has taken place, but learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the validity of the principles enunciated by the High Court.

The plaintiff is an architect by profession and is also playwright, dramatist and producer of stage plays. Even before Hum Hindustani the plaintiff had written and produced number of other plays like Des Hamara, Azadi and Election which were staged in Delhi. The <i1bject ,matter of the appeal, however, is the play entitled 'Hum l-Jindustani'. According to the praintiff, this play was written by him in Hindi in the year 1953 and was enacted by him for the first time on fith, 7th, 8th and 9th February, 1954 at Wavell Theatre, New Delhi under the auspices of the Indian National Theatre. The play proved to he very popular and received great -approbation from the Press and the public as result of which the play was re-staged in February and September, 1954 and also in 1955 and 1956 at Calcutta. Jn support of bis c>1se the plaintiff has referred to 'a number of comments appear-ing in the Indian Express, Hindustan Times, Times of India and other papers.

Encouraged by the success and popularity of the aforesaid play the plaintiff tried to consider the possibility of filming it. In N ovem-ber, 19.54 the plaintiff received letter dated 19th Navember, 1954 from the second defendant Mr. Mohan Sehgal wherein the defendant informed the plaintiff that he was supplied with synopsis of the play by one Mr. Balwant Gargi common friend of the plaintiff and the defendant The defendant had requested the plaintiff to sup-ply copy of the play so that the defendant may consider the desir-ability of making oa film on it. The plaintiff, however, by his letter dated 30th November, 1954 informed the defendant that as the play had been selected out of 17 Hindi plays for National Drama Festival and would be staged on 11th December, 1954, the defendant should take the trouble of visiting Delhi and seeing the pl•ay himself in order to examine the potentialities of making film, and at that time the matter could be discussed by the defendant with the plaintiff.The plaintiff's case, however, is that some time about January, 1955 the second and the third defendants came to Delhi, met the plain-tiff in his office where the plaintiff read out and explained the entire play to the defendants and also discussed the possibility of filming it. The second defendant did not make any clear commitment but pro-mised the plaintiff that he would inform him about his re-action after reaching Bombay. Thereafter the plaintiff heard nothing from the defendant. Sometime in May, 1955 the second defendant announced the production of motion picture entitled "New Delhi". One Mr. Thapa who was one of the artists in the play produced by the plaintiff happened to be in Bombay at the time when the picture 'New Delhi' was being produced by the defendant and informed the plaintiff that the picture being produced by the defendant was really based on the

plamtilI's play 'Hum Hindustani'. The plaintiff thereupon by his letter dated 30th May, 1955 wrote to the second defendant expressing serious concern over the adaptation of his play into motion picture called 'New Delhi'. The defendant, however, by his letter dated 9th June, 1955 informed the plaintiff that his doubts were without any foundahon and assured the plaintiff that the story treatment, dramatic construction, characters etc. were quite different and bore not the re-molest connection or resemblance with the play written by the plaintiff.

The picture was released in Delhi in September, 1956 and the plaintiff read some comments in the papers which gave the impression that the picture was very much like the play 'Hum Hindustani' written by the plaintiff. The plaintiff himself saw the picture on the 9th Sep-tember, 1956 and he found that the film was entirely based upon the said play and was, therefore, convinced that the defendant after having heard the play narrated to him by the plaintiff dishonestly imitated the same in his film and thus committed an act of piracy so as to result in violation of the copy-right of the plaintiff. The plaintiff accordingly filed the suit for damages, for decree for accounts of the profits made by the defendants and decree for permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from exhibiting the film 'New Delhi'.

The suit was contested by defendants No. 1 and 2 as also by other defendants who adopted the picas raised by defendants No. 1 and 2.

The defeµdants, inter alia, pleaded that they were not aware that the plaintiff was the author of the play 'Hum Hindustani' nor were they aware that the play was very well received at Delhi. Defendant No. 2 is film Director and is also the proprietor of defendant No. 1 Delux Films. The defendants averred that in November, 1954 the second defendant was discussing some ideas for his nG.W picture witl' Mr. Balwant Gargi who is play wright of some repute. In the course of the discussion, the second defendant informed Mr. Gargi that the second defendant was interested in producing motion film based on 'provincialism' as its central theme. In the con-text of these discussions Mr. Gargi enquired of defendant No. 2 if the latter was interested in hearing the play called 'Hum Hindustani' pro-duced by the plaintiff which also had the same theme of provincialism in which the second defendant was interested. It was, therefore, at the instance of Mr. Gargi that the second defendant wrote to the plain-tiff and reqmsted him to send copy of the script of the play. The defendant goes on to state that the plaintiff read out the play to the. second defendant in the presence of Rajinder Bhatia and Mohan Kumar, Assistant Directors of the second defendant when they had

come to Delhi in connection with the release of their film "Adhikar". The second defendant has taken clear stand that after having heard the play he informed the plaintiff that though the play might have been all right for the amateur stage, it was too inadequate for the purpose of making full length commercial motion picture. The defendants denied the allegation of the plainUff that it was after hearing the play written by the plaintiff that the defendants decided to make film based on the play and entitled it as 'New Delhi'.

The defendant thus submitted that there could be no copy-right so far as the subject of provincialism is concerned which can be used or adopted by any body in his own way. He further averred that the motion picture was quite different from the play 'Hum Hindustani' both in contents, spirit and climax. The mere fact that there were some similarities between the film and the play could be explained by the fact that the idea, viz., provincialism was the common source of the play as also of the film. The defendant thus denied that there was any violation of the copy right.

On the basis of the pleadings of the partio;s, the learned trial Judge framed the following issues :

1. Is the plaintiff owner of the copyright in the play 'Hum Hindustani' ?

2. Is the film 'New Delhi' an infringement of the plaintiff's copyright in the play 'Hum Hindustani' ? 3. Have. defendants or any of them infringed the plaintiff's copyright by producing, or distributing or exhibiting the film 'New Delhi'?

4. Is the suit bad for misjoinder of defendants and cause of action?

5. To what relief is the plaintiff entitled and against whom?

Issue No. 1 was decided against the defendants and it was held by the trial Judge that the plaintiff was the owner of the copy-right in the play 'Hum Hindustani'. Issue No. 4 was not pressed by the defen-dants and was accordingly. decided against them. The main case however turned upon the decision on issues No. 2 and 3 which were however decided against the plaintiff as the learned Judge held that there was no violation of the copyright of the plaintiff. The plaintiff then went up in appeal to the Delhi High Court where Division Bench of that Court affirmed the decision of the District Judge and upheld the decree dimissing the plaintiff's suit. The find-ings of fact arrived at by the learned trial Judge and the High Court

have not been assailed before us. The only argument advanced by the appellant was that the principles enunciated and the legal infe-rences drawn by the courts below are against the settled legal princi-ples laid down by the courts in England, America and India. It was also submitted by Mr. Andley that the two courts have not fully understood the import of the vio!aticm of copy-right particularly when the similarities betwen the play and th~ film are so clo'sc and sundry that would lead to the irresistible inference and unmistakable impression that the film is nothing but an imitation of the play. On the other hand, it was argued by Mr. Hardy counsel for the respondents that the two courts below have applied the law correctly and it is not neces-sary for this Court to enter into merits in view of the concurrent findings of fact given by the two courts. He further submitted that even on the facts found it is manifest that there is vast difference both in the spirit and the content between the play 'Hum Hindustani' and the film 'New Delhi' and no question of violation of the copy-right arises.

In order to appreciate the argument of both the parties it may be necessary to discuss the law on the subject. To begin with there is no decided case of this Court on this point. Secondly, at the time. when lhe cause of action arose Parliament had not made any law governing copy-right violations and the courts in the absence of any law by our Parliament relied on the old law passed by the British Parliament, namely, the Copy Right Act of 1911. Section 1 sub-section (2) (d) defines 'copy-right' thus :

"(2) For the purposes of this Act, copy-right' means the sole right to produce or reproduce the work or any sub-stantial part thereof in any material form wh~tsoever, to perform, or in the case of lecture to deliver, the work or any substantial part thereof in public. If the work is un-published, to publish the work or any substantial part thereof; and shall include the sole right,

x x x x x ( d) in the case of .literary, dramatic, or musical work, to make any record, perforated roll, cinematograpb film, or other contrivance by means of which the work may be mechanically performed or delivered".

Section 2 provides the contingencies where infringed and runs thus :-·

copy-right could be

"2 (1 ) Copyright in work shall be deemed to be in-

fringed b~ any person who, without the consent of the

owner of the copyright. does anything the sole right to do which is by this Act conferred on the owner of the copy-right".

It is, therefore, clear that the Act of 1911 defines 'copyright' and also indicates the various contingencies where copy-right cannot be in-fringed. The statute also provides exceptions which would not amount to voilation of copyright.

Jn the instant case the play ·.v.-itten by the appellant falls within section 1 ( 2 )( d) because it is dramatic work. The learned Dis-trict Judge has rightly held that emotions like mere ideas are not sub-ject to pre-emption because they are common property. Quoting from the law of copyright and Movie-rights by Rustom R. Dadacf!anji the lemned Judge observed as follows :-

"Jt is obvious that the underlying emotion reflected by the principal characters in play or look may be similar and ;·et that the characters and expression o~ the same emo-tions be different. That the same emotions are found in plays would not alone be sufficient to prove infringement but if similar emotions are portrayed by sequence of events presented in like manner expression and form, then infringe-ment would be apparent".

Similarly in the case of Hanfstaengl v. W. H. Smith and Sons(') it has been held by Bayley, J. that "a copy is that which comes so near to the original as to give to every person seeing it the idea created by the ori.~lnar'.

In Habbury's Laws of England by Lord Hailsham Fourth Edition the following observations are made :

"Only original works are protected under Part I of the Copyright Act 195 6, but it is not requisite that the work should be the expression of original or inventive thought, for Copyright Acts are not concerned with the originality of ideas, but with the expression of thought, and, in the case of literary work, with the expression of thought in print or writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . There is copyright in original dramatic works and adaptations thereof, and such . copyright subsists not only in the actual words of the work but in the dramatic incidents created, so that if these are taken there may be an infringement oa!though no words are actually · copies. There cannot be copyright in mere science effects or stage situations which are not reduced into some permanent form".

(I) [19051 l Ch. D. 519.

Similarly, it was pointed out by Copinger in his book on Copyright 11th Edition that what is protected is not the original thought but expression of thought in concrete form. In this connection, the author makes the following observations based on .the case law :

''What is protected is not original thought or informa-tion, but the original expression of thought or information in some concrete form. Consequently, it is only an in-fringement if the defendant has made an unlawful use of the form in which the thought or information is expressed. The defendant must to be liable, have made substantial use of this form; he is not 'fable if he has taken from the work the essential, ideas however original, and expressed the idea in his own form, or used the idea for his own purposes."

The author also points out that there is no infringement unless the plaintiff's play-wrighted work has been actually used so, that it may be said that the latter work reproduces the earlier one. In this con-nection, the author observes as follows :-

"A further essential matter, and one which-rather strangely-is not anywhere precisely stated in the Act of 1956 is that there can be no infringement unless use has been made, directly or indirectly, of the plaintiff's work".

which-rather

Moreover, it seems to us that the fundamental idea of violation of copyright or imitation is the violation of the Eighth Command-ment : "Thou shalt not steal" which forms the moral basis of the protective provisions of the Copyright Act of 1911. It is obvious that when writer or dramatist produces drama it is result of his great labour, energy, time and ability and if any other person is allowed to appropriate the labours of the copy-righted work, his act amounts to theft by depriving the original owner of the copy-right of the product of his labour. It is also clear that it is not necessary that the alleged infringement should be an exact or verbatim copy of the original bul its resemblance with the original in large measure, is sufficient to indicate that it is copy. In Article 418 Copinger . 't~tes thus :-

"In many cases the alleged infringement does not con-sist of an exact, or verbatim copy, of the whole, or any part, of the earlier work, but merely resembles it in greater or lesser degree''.

In Article 420 the author lays down the various tests to determine whether an infringement has taken place and observes as follows :-

"Various definitions of 'copy' have been suggested, but it is submitted that the true view of the matter is that, where the court is satisfied that defendant has, in producing the alleged infringement, made substantial . use of those fea-tures of the plaintiff's work in which copyright subsists, an infringement will be held to have been committed, if he has made such use, he has ex·~rcised unlawfully the sole right which is conferred upon the plaintiff."

Ball in "Law of Copyright and Literary Property" page 364 points out that where the defendant materially changes the story he cannot be said to have infringed the copyright. In this connection, the author observes as follows :-"In such composition the story is told by grouping and representing the important incidents in the particular sequence devised by the author whose claim to copyright must depend upon the particular story thus composed; and not upon the various incidents, which, if presented indivi-dually, without such unique sequential arrangement, would be common literary property. Consequently another dra-matist who materially changes the story by materially varying the incidents should not be held to be infringer" . •

It is also pointed out by Mr. Ball that sometimes even though there may be similarities between the copy-righted work and the work of the defendant they may be too trivial to amount to appropriation of copyrighted material. The author observes thus :-

"When two anthors portray in literary or dramatic form the same occurrence, involving people reacting to the same emotions under the influence of an environment cons-tructed of the S'al1le materials, similarities in incidential drtails necessary to the environment or setting are inevit-able; but unless they are accompanied by similarities in the dramatic development of the plot or in the lines or action of the principal characters, they do not constitute evidence of copying. They are comparable to similarities in two works of art made by different artists from the same origi-nal subject, and in the usual case are too trivial and unim-portant to amount to substantial appropriation of coypyrighted material".

The author further says that unless there is any substantial identity between the respective works in the scenes, incidents and treatment case of infringement of copyright is not made and observes thus :-

"But there was no substantial indentity between the res-pective works in the scenes, incidents, or treatment of the common theme, the court held that the plaintiff's copyrights were not infringed by the defendant's photoplays".

Dealing with the infringement of copyright of play by motion picture which appears to be an identical case in the present appeal, the author observes as follows :-

"In an action for the alleged infringement of the copy-right ol play by motion picture, wherein it appeared that both authors had used life in boys' reform school 2s background, but the only similarity between the two pro-ductions consisted of few incidents and points in dialogue, such -as one would expect to find in stories set against the same background, there was no infringement of copyright".

To the same effect are the following observations of the author :

"Where the only evidence of similarities between two plays was based upon the author's analysis and interpreta-tion of an extensive list of "parallel", from which he infer-red that many incidents, scenes and characters in the alleg-ed infringing play were adapted frdm the plaintifI's copy-righted play, but no such resemblance would be apparent to an ordinary observer, it was held that the meaning or intf:rpretation which the author gives to his literary work cannot be accepted as deciding lest of plagiarism; and that, in the ~bsence of any material resemblance which could be recognised by an ordinary observation, each play must he regarded as the independent work oI the named author".

Similar observations have been made in Corpus Juris Secundum Vol. 18 at page 1_39 where it is abse.rved as follows :

"An author has, at common law, property in his intellec-tual production before it has been published, and may ob-tain redress against anyone who deprives him of it, or, by improperly obtaining copy, endeavours to publish or to use it without his consent". 16-520 SCI/78

"This right exists in the written seenario of motion pic-ture photoplay and in the photp'play itself as recorded on the photographic film. There is, however, no common-Jaw literary property right in the manner and postures of the actors used by them in performing the play".

"Infringement of copyright is trespass on private domain owned and occupied by the owner of the copyright, and, therefore, protected by Jaw, apd infringement of copy-right, or piracy, which is synonymous term in this connec-tion, consists in the doing by any person, with.out the con-sent of the owner of the copyright, of anything the sole right to do which is conferred by !he statute on the o\vner of the copyright."

This view was taken by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Bobbs-Merrill Company v. Isidor Straus and Nathan Straus.(') In the American Jurisprudence also it is pointed out that the law does not recognize property rights in abstract idea, nor is an idea protected by copyright and it becomes copyrighted work only when the idea is given embodiment in tangible form. In this con-nection the following observations are made :-

"Generally speaking, the Jaw does not recognize pro-perty rfghtil in abstract ideas and does not ru:cord the author or proprietor the protection of his ideas, which the law does accord to the proprietor of persona! property".

"In cases involving motion pictures or radio or televi-sion broadcasts, it is frequently stated that an idea is not protected by a· copyright or under the common law, m: that there is no property right in an idea, apart fro'm the manner in which· it is expressed".

"Wlieri' ari idea is given embodiment in tangible form, it becomes the subject of common-law property rights which are protected by the courts, at least when it can be said to be n,o'Vel and new''.

It ·11as also pointed out in this book as to what constitutes colour-able imitation. In this connection, the following observations have been made :-

"Infringement involves copying, in whole or in part, either in haec verba (sic) or by colorable variation ... copy --(I) 210 U.S. 339. ··-·

as used. in copyright cases, signifies tangible object which is reproduction of the original work. The question is not whether the alleged infringer coul\I have ob-tained the same infprmation by going to the sa111e source. used by the plaintiff in his work, but whether he did in fact go to the same source aod do his own idependent re-search. In other words, the test is whether one charged with the infringement made an independent production, or made sub~tantial and unfair use of the· plaintiff's work".

"Intention tp plagiarise is not. es_sential to establish liability for infringement of copyright or for plagiarism of Jitprary property in unpublished books, manuscripts, or plays. One may be held liable for infringement which is unintentional or whicn was done unconsciously".

"Similarity ,of the alleged infringing work to the authofs or propriefor's copyrighied work:, does' not of it~eli stablish copyright infringement, if the sirriifarity results f'iCim the fact that both works deal with the same subject or have tlie Hime comfuori soutce ........ Nevcith.eless; -it is the un~ fa\J' a!\propi:iatfori of the labotlr or the .aulhor whose work has bedri infringed that constitutes legal infringement,, and while identity of language will often prove that the offence was committed, it is not necessarily the sole proof; on the. other halitl, relief will be affbrded, _irres~ective of the exis-tence or nort-exiSrence of any siJriilarity of language, if infringement in fact can be proved."

"The. ap.J?iopriati.on niµst b.e of 'substantial' or 'mate· rial; part. of the protected work . . . . . . . . .......... The test is wh~ther. the one charged with the infrlligement has made substaotial and unfair use of the complainant's work. Infringement exists when 5tudy of two writings indicates plainly that the defendant's work is transparent rephras-ing to produce essentially the story of the other writing, bnt where there is no textual copyiqg aod there are differences in iiterary style, the fact that there is sameness in the tricks of spinning out the yarn so as to sustain the reader's smpense, and similarities of the same general nature in narrative of long, complicated search for lost article of fabulous value, does not indicate infringement."

We shall now discuss spine of the authorities that have been cited at the Bar as also some others with whom we have come across and which throw flood of light on the point in issue. Dealing with the question of similarities Lord Kekewich, J. in Hanfstaengl case (Supra) described various qualities of co'py and observed as follows

"In West v. Francis(') Bayley J. uses language coming, as Lord Watson says, nearer to a. definition than anything which is to be found in the books. It runs thus : "A copy is that which comes so near to the original as io give to every person seeing it the idea created by the original. ...

If it were altered thus-"a copy is that which comes so near to the original as to suggest that original to the mind of every person seeing it" -the substance of the definition would be preserved and Lord Watson's criticism would be avoided.'"

The learned Judge aptly pointed out that an imitation will be copy which comes so near to the original as to suggest the original to the mind of every person seeing it. In other words, if after having seen the picture person forms definite opinion and gets dominant impression that it has been based on or taken from the original play by the appellant that will be sufficient to constitute violation of the copy-right.

In the case of Ladbroke (Football) Ltd. v. William Bill (Foot-ball) Ltd. (') Lord Reid made the following pertinent observations

"But, in my view, that is only short out, and more cor-rect approach is first to determine whether the plaintiff's work as whole is 'original' and protected hy copyright, and then to inquire whether the part taken by the defendant is sub-stantial. A. wrong result can easily be reached if one be-gins by dissecting the plaintiff's work and asking, could section be the subject of copyright if it stood by itself, could section be protected it it stodd hy itself, and so on. To my mind, it does not follow that, because the fragments taken separately would not be copyright, therefore the whole cannot be".

(!) (18221 T. B. & Aid. 737, 743. (2) [196411 All E.R. 465.

R. G. AN~ v. DBLUX FILMS (Fazal Ali, !.)

Lord Hodson expressed similar views at p. 475 in the following words :-

"The appellants have sought to argue that the coupons can be dissected and that on analysis no copyright attaches to any of their component parts and accordingly no protec-tion is available. In my opinion this approach is wrong and the coupons must be looked at as whole. Copy-right is statutory right which by the terms of s. 2 of the Act of 1956 wpuld appear to subsist, if at all, in the literary or other work as one entity".

This case clearly lays down that similarity here or similarity there is not sufficient to constitute violation of the copyright unless the imitation made by the defendant is substantial.

In the case of Corelli v. Gray(') Sargent, J. observed as follows :-

"The plaintiff's case is entirely founded on coincidences or similarities between the novel and the sketch. Such coincidences or similarities may be due to any one of the · four hypotheses-namely (1) to mere chance, or (2) to both sketch and novel being taken from common source: ( 3) t<J the novel being taken from the sketch, or ( 4) to the sketch being tak~n from the novel. Any of the first three hypotheses would result in the success of the defendant; it is the fourth hypothesis alone that will entitle the plaintiff to succeed"'.

··Looking now at the aggregate of the similarities bet-ween the sketch and the novel, and the case is essentially one in. which the proof is cumulative. I am irresistibly forced to the conclusion that it is quite impossible they should be due to mere chance coincidence and accordingly that they must be due to process of copying or appropria-tion by the defendant from the plaintiff's novel".

Thus it was pointed out in this case ..vhere the aggregate of the similarities between the copyrighted work and the copy lead td the cumulative effect that the defendant had imitated the original and that the similarities between the two works are not coincidental, reasonable inference of colourable imitation or of appropriation of the lahour cf the owner of the :opyright by the defendant is proved. This case was followed by the Master of Rolls in the case of Corelli v.Gray([2]).

(l) 29 T.L.R. 570.

(2) 30 T.L.R. H6.

The case of Hawkes and Son (London) Limited v. Paramount Film Service Limited(') was whether musical composition made by the owner was sought to be imitated by producing film contain-ing the said composition. An action for violation of the copyright was filed by the owner. Lord Hansworth, M. R. iound that the quantum taken was substantial and substantial part of the musical copyright could be reprdduced apart from the actual film. In this connection, Lord Hansworth observed as follows :-

"Having considered and heard this film I am quite satis-fied that the quantum that is taken is snbstantial, and al-though it might be difficult, and although it may be uncer-tain whether it will be ever used again, we must not neglect the evidence that substantial part of the musical copy-right could be reproduced apart from the actual picture film."

Similar observations were made by Lord Slesser which may be

extracted thus :-

"A11y one hearing it would know that it was the march called "Colonel Bogey" and though it may be that it was not very prolonged in its reproduction, it is clearly, in my view, substantial, vital and an essential part which is there reproduced. That being so, it is clear to my mind that fair use has not been rnade of it; that is to say, there has been appropriated and published in form which will or may materially injure the copyright that in which the plaintiffs have Qroprietary right".

11' In the case of Harman Pictures N.V. v. Osborne & Ors.(•) it was held that similarities of incidents and situation undoubtedly afforded prima facle evidence of copy and in the absence of any explanation by the defendant regarding the sources, the plaintiffs mu2; succeed. It was however held that there was no copyright in ideas, schemes or systems or method an:! the copyright is confined only to the subject. In this connection Coff, J. observed as follows :-

"There is no copyright in ideas or schemes or systems or methods; it is confined to their expression ........... . But there is distinction between ideas (which are not copy-right) and situations and incidents which may be ....... . ........ One must, hO'\Vever, be careful not to jump to the

(!) [1934] l Ch. D. 593. (2) [1967] l W.L.R. 723.

conclusion that there has been copying merely because of similarity of stock incidents, or of incidents which are to be found in histoncal, semi-historical and fictional literature about characters in history. In such cases the plaintiffs, aricf tMfi.includes the plaintiffs in the present case, are in an ces". obvious di:fficitlty . bec.ause ,~ ' .. of the existence cl common sour-

"But I have read the whoie of· tbe script very carefully and compared it with the book and I tin'd many similaritie§ of detail there also. . ..................... Again it is prima fade not without significance that apart from the burial of Captain Nolan the play ends with 1he very quota-tion which Mrs. Wodham-Smith used to end her description of the battle .......................... As Sir Andrew Clark points out, some of these might well be accounted • "for as being similar to other events already in the script, and in any event abridgment was necessary, but that may not be complete answer''.Similarly in the case of Donoghue v. AlJied Newspapers(') it was pointed out that there was no copyright in an idea and in this connection Farwell, J. observed as follows:---d ·----"This. at any rate, is clear, and one can start with this beyond all question that there is no copyright in an idea, or in ideas.. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. . ff the idea, howevd brilliant and however clever it may be, is nothing more than an idea, and is not put into any form of words, or any form of expression such as picture or play, then there is no such thing as copyright at all. It is not until it is (If T may put it in that way) reduced into writing, or'into some tan-gible form, that you get any right to copyright at all, and the C<j>yright exists in the particular form of langmfte in which, o1' in the case of picture, in the particular form of the picture by which, the information or the idea is conveyed to those.eW¥> ere intendea to read it or look at it''.

Similarly in the case of Bobl and Anr. v. Palace Thearre (Limited) and Am·.(') Justice Hamilton observed as [ollows :-

''If similarity between two works was sufficiently strong the evidence of copying woul_d be so cogent that no one would believe any denial, but here the intrinsic evidence was

(I) [1937] 3 All E.R. 503.

(2) 28 T.L.R. 22.

really the other way .......... The matter had been consi-dered by Justice Scruttou in his book on Copyright, and the conclusion there come (sic) to (Note p. 83 of fourth edi-tion) was that to which his own reflection during the progress of this case would have led him. He considered, therefore, that where the similarity was mere coincidence there was no breach of copyright."

In the case of Tate v. Fullbrook([1]) observed as follows :-

Lord Vaughan Williams

"I do not think that I need go at length through the similarities aud dissimilarities of the two sketches. It is practically admitted that, so far as the words are concerned, the similarity is trifling ................ All that we find here is certain likeness of stage situation and scenic effect, which, in my opinion, ought not to be taken into considera-tion at all where there is appreciable likeness in the words". In the case of Frederick B. Chatterton and Benjamin Webster l/, Joseph Arnold Cave([2 ]) Ha~erley observ~d as follows :-

"And if the quantity taken he neither substantial nor material, if, as it has been expressed by some Judges, "a fair i;se•· only be made of the publication, nci wrong is done and no action can be prlYUght. It is not, perhaps, exactly ~he same with dramatic performances. They are not in-tended to be repeated by others or to be used in such way as book may be used, but still the principle de mini-mis no11 curat lex applies to supposed wrong in taking part of dramtic works, as well as in reproducing part of book."

"I think, my Lords, . regard being had to the whole of this case to the finding o~ the Lord Chief Justice that the parts which were so taken were neither substantial nor material parts, and the impossibility of damage being held to have accrued to the plaintiff from such taking, and the con-cmrence of the other J11dges before whom the case was, brought that this appeal should be dismissed, and dismissed with costs"-

In the case of Sheldon v. Metro-Golden Pictures Corporation(•) .Judge Learned Hand stated that while considering case which is very similar to the case in this appeal observed as follows :-

(I) 77 L.J.R. 577.

(2) (1878) 3 A.C. 483.

13) 81 2d 40.

"But it is convenient to- define such use by saying that others may. ucopy" the "theme·~\ or,_ ~~ideas", 'or the like, ot' work, though not its_"expression". - -At any rate so long as it is clear what is meallt, no harm is -done . ..... · Finally, in concluding as we do that the defendants used the play_ pro tanto, we need not charge their witnesses with perjury. With so many sources before· fhem they might quite honestly forget what they took; nooody knows - the - origin of his-inventions; memory and fancy merge even in adults. Yet unconscious plagiarism is actionable quite as much as deliberate."

"The play is the sequence of the confluents of all these -means, bound together in an inseparable unity; it may often be most effectively pirated by leaving out the speech, for which substitute can be found, which keeps -the whole -dramatic meaning. That as it appears to us is ·exactly what the defendants have done here; the dramatic signifi-cance of the scenes we have recited is the same, almost to the letter ...................... It is enough that subs-tantial parts were lifted; no plagiarist cau excuse the wrong by showing how. much of his work he did not pirate." In the aforesaid case the Court held that there was no plagiarism or violation of the copyright.

In the case of Shipman v. R. K. 0. Radio Pictures(') while hold-ing that an idea cannot be the subject of copyright great stress was laid on the impression which the audienc~ forms after seeing the copy. In this connection, Menton, J. observed as follows :-,-

"The Court concluded that it was the idea or impres-sion conveyed to the audiewoe which was the de:ermining factor, and since the impressions were the same, held there was an infringement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . From this case stand the modern law of copyright cases, with the result that it is now held that ideas ¥e not copyrightable but that sequence of events is; the identity of impression must be capable of sensory perception by the audience".

In the_ case of Michael V. Moretti v. People of the State of lllhwis{°) it was held that law does not recognise property rights in ideas but only in the expression of the same in particular manner adopted by the author. - writ of certiorari was taken against this judgment to the U.S. Supreme Co~rt which was denied. To the

(I) 100 2d 533. (2) 248 2d 799~356 U.S. 947 .

[1979] 1 S.C.R.

242S ,1 ·

[1979] 1 . - -"----,---·

',' ......

same.• effect is an earlier decision in the case of Funkhouser v. Lo.W's('.) where the following relevant observations were made on . the variiius aspects of the matter : .

. · · "We are also mindful that the test used to determine infrincement o in cases of this case is whether ordinary obser-vation of the· motion· picture photoplay would cause it to be recognised_. as picturisation of the compositions allow-ed to have been copied, and not whether by some hypcrcri- · tical dissection of. sentences and incidents seeming simila-rities are shown.to.erlst:C·:·:: .......... It recognised that there were similar incidents in the productions, bu! such similarities were due to the nature of the subject matter and 'not to copying. Both the motion picture and plain-tiff's story 'Old John Santa Fe' were set in the same geo-graphical area and both had the typical c•.westem back-ground .......•.. ; • . . . . . . . . . . . . Appellant's ·attempt• to · show similarities . by comparing word or phrase taken from hiS: manuscript with the word or words appe;!ring in the lyric~ of· song ·in appellee's motion picture is not in conformity with the test used in infringement cases and to which we have referred to above.· We.find no merit in the · contention that any of the songs in d~fendant's movie were taken from plaintiff's manuscripts. • . . . . . . . . Considering that both the movie and the manuscript presented activities .• · of Harvey Girls, and information concerning . them was . received from the same ·source, we think it reasonable that· some similarities in chaiactei portrayal could be discovered" ..

In view of the aforesaid observation too much stress cannot always be laid on similarities or similar situations. writ of certiorari against the judgment of the U.S .. Courts Appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was taken but the certiorari was denied and the. petitioh was ncjecte1 in limine as it appears from 348 U.S. 843. This was also case where film was made on the basis of play claimed· to have been written by the plaintiff.

The case of Warner ·Bros. Pictures v. Columbia Broadcasting System ([2]) is another illustration of the manner in which copyright can be violated. Dealing with this aspect of the matter Stephens, J. observed as follows :-

"It is our conception of the area covered by the copy-right statute that when study of the ·two writings is made and it is plain the study that one of them is .not in fact the

(ll 208 2d 185.

(2) 216 2d 945 •

and circumstances in evideuce whether there has been sub-stantial takiEg from an original and copyrighted property, and therefore an unfair use of the protected work ........ . The two works involved in this appeal should be considered and tested, not hypercritically or with meticulous SCIUtiny, but by the observations and impressions of the average reasonable reader and spectator ........ We find and con-clude, as did the court below, that the numerous striking similarities in the two works cannot in the light of all the evi-dence be said to constitute mere chance. The deduction of material and substantial unlawful copying of appellee's origi-c nal play in appellant's motion picture is more in 'consonance with the record and with the probabilities of the situation therein disclosed''.

This authority lays down in umnistakable terms the cases where an infringement of the copyright would take place and as pointed out that before the charge of plagiarism is levelled against the defendant it must be shown that the defeudant has taken substantial portion of the matter from the original and have made unfair use of the protective work. The two works involved must be considered and tested not hypercritically but with meticulous scrutiny.

Similarly, in the case of Oliver Wendell Holmes v. George D. Hirst([1]) Justice Brown speaking for the Court and describing the incidents of violation of the copyright observed as follows :

·"It is the intellectual production of the author which the copyright protects, and not the particular form which such production ultimately takes''.

The Judicial Committee in the case of Macmillan & Company Limited v. K. and J. Cooper(') while pointing out the essential ingredients of the infringement of copyright Lord Atkinson observed as follows :-G

"Third, that to constitute piracy of copyright it must be shown that the original has been either substantially copied or to be so imitated as to be mere evasion of the copy-right".

(1) 174 U.S. 82.

(2) 51 I.A. 109.

In the case of Florence A. Deeks v. H. G. Wells & Ors.(') Lord Atkin speaking for the Judicial Committee summarised the nature of the evidence required to prove as violation of copy-right and observed as follows :-

summarised

"Now their Lordships are not prepared to say that in the case of two literary works intrinsic evidence of that kind may not be sufficient to establish case of copying, even if the direct evidence is all the other way and appears to be evi-dence that can be accepted; but such evidence must be of the most cogent force before it can be accepted as against the oath of respectable and responsible people whose evidence otherwise would be believed by the Court".

In the case of N.T. Raghunathan & Anr. v. All India Reporter Ltd., Bombay([2 ]) it was held that copyright law did not protect ideas but only the particular expression of ideas. In that case, the Bombay High Court however held that the defendant had copied not only the ideas but also the style of abridgment, the expression of ideas and the form in which they were expressed and thus held that case for viola-tion of copyright was made out.

All India Reporter did not protect ideas D·

K. R. Venugopalan Sarma v. Sangu Ganesan([8 ]) was case of in-fringement of copyright in pictm·,, and it was held that a1'. infringement of the copyright wa> complete even though the reproduction was not exact, but the effect on the mind by study of t'le two pictures was that the respondent's picture was nothing but copy of the plaintiff's picture. The Court while applying the various te,~s observed as follows :-

"Applying this test, the degree of resemblance between the twu pictures, which is to be judged by the eye, lilust be such that the person looking at the respondents' pictures must

get the suggestion that it is the appellant's picture ....... . One picture can be said to be copy of another picture only if substantial part of the former picture fin\Js place in the reproduction".

To the same effect is an earlier decision of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of The Daily Calendar Supplying Bureau, Sivakasi v. The United Concern(') where the Court observed as follows :-

()) 60 I.A. 26.

(2) A.I.R. 1971 Born. 48. (3) 1972 Cr. L.J. 1098. 14) A.l.R. 1967 Mad. 381.

"What is essential is to see whether there is reproduc-tion of snbstantial part of the picture. There can be no test to decide what substantial part of picture is. O~e useful test, which has been followed in several decisions of Courts, is the one laid down by Lord Herschel, L.C. in Hanistae11gl v. Bains & Co.(')

". . . . . . it depends really, on the effect produced upon the mind by study of the picture and of that which is alleged to be copy of it, or at least of its design".

In the case of C. Cunniah and ·Co. v. Ba/raj & Co. (2) the Court applying the test of resemblance observed as follows :-c

"Ap~lying this test, the degree of resemblance between the tWo pictures, which is to be judged by the eye, must be such that the person looking at the respondents' picture must get the suggestion that it is the appellant's piCture. fn this sense, the points of similarity or dissimilarity in the pic-ture assume some importance ........ We agree that thi{ could not be the sole test, though, incidentally, the points of resemblance and dissimilarity assume some ipiportance in the case of finding out whether, taken as whole, the respon-dents' picture produces the inlpression in the mind of any observer, which amounts to suggestion of the appellants' pictur-e".

"One picture can be said to be copy of andthet picture only if substantial part of the former picture finds place in the reproduction".

In the case of Mohendra Chandra Nath Ghosh a11d° Ors. v: Emperor(•) the Court while defining what copy is held that copy is one which is so near the original as to suggest the original to the mind of the spectator and observed as follows :-

"But the qnestion is whether the offending pictures are copies of substantial portions of the copyright picture ..... .

The figures may have been reduced in the offending pictures and slight modifications may have been introduced, or the clothes and colours may have been different, but there can be no doubt whatsoever that the main figures have an identJ-

(!) [18951 A.C. 20, 25.

(2) A.I.R. 1961 Mad. 111.

(3) A.I.R. 1928 Cal 359.

cal pose. These are not, in my opinion, coincidences dne to the pictures being produced to represent common stock ideas".

Similarly in the case of S. )(.Dutt v. Law Book Co. & Ors.([1]) it was held that in order to be 'Ill infringement of a: man's copyright there must be substantial infr;ngement of the work. mere fair deahng with any work falls outside the mischief of the Copyright Act. Similarly, in the case of Romesh Chowdhry & Ors. v. Kh. Ali Mohamud Nowsheri & Ors.(2) the Division Bench of the Court to which one of us us (Fazal Ali, J.) was party and had written the leading judgment it was thus observed :

Similarly, in the case of Romesh Chowdhry & Ors. v. Kh. Ali Mohamud Nowsheri & Ors.(2) the Division Bench of the Court to which one of us us (Fazal Ali, J.) was party and had written the leading judgment it was thus observed :

"It is well settled that in order to be actionable the in-fringement must be colourable imitation of the originals with the purpose of deriving profit".

In the case of Mohini Mohan Singh & Ors. v. Sita Nath Basak([3 ]) Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court while laying down the necessary concomitants of colourable imitation Mukherji, J. observed' as follows :-

"The question there is whether colourable imitation has been made. Whether work is co!Ourable imitation of another must necessarily be question o{ fact. Slmilarty is great point to be considered in this connection bilt mere similarity is not enough as it may be due to any one of four hypotheses as Copinger points out at p. 134, Edn. 6, viz., (1) to mete chance, (2) to both works being taken from common force, (3) to plaintiff's work being taken from the defendant's and ( 4) defendant1s work being taken frojii the plaintiff's and each case must depend upon its own circum-stances".

Guba, J. observed as follows :-

"It has to be determined whether in particular case the work is legitimate use of another man's publication in the fair exercise of mental operation deserving the character of original work".

(I) A.I.R. 1954 All. 570.

(2) A.I.R. 1965 J & K. 101.

(3) A.I.R. 1931 Cal. 230.

Thus, the position appears to be that an idea, principle, theme, or subject matter or historical or legendary facts being common property cannot be the subject matter of copyright of particular person. It is always opeu to any person to choose an idea as subject matter and. develop it in his own manner and give expression to the idea. by treating it differently from others. Wbere two writers write on the same subject similarities are bound to occur because the central idea of both are the same but the similarities or coin.cidcnccos by themselves cannot lead to an irresistible inference of plagiarism or piracy. Take for instance the great poet and dramatist Shakespeare most of whose plays are ba,cd on Greek-Roman and British mythology or legendary stories like Mer-chant of Venice, Hamlet, Romeo Juliet, Jullius Caesar etc. But the treatment of the subject by Shakespeare in each of his dramas is ;o fresh, so different, so full of poetic exuberance, elegance and erudition and so r.ovel in character as 'l result of which the end product be-comes an original in itself. In fact, the power and passion of his ex-pression, the uniqueness, eloquence and excellence of his style aud pathos and bathos of the dramas become peculiar to Shakespeare and leaves precions little of the original theme adopted by him. It will thus be preposterous to level charge of plagiarism against the great play-wright. In fact, tboughout bh original thinking, ability and in-cessant labour Shakespeare has converted an old idea- into new one, so that each of the dramas constitutes master-piece of English litera-ture. It bas been rightly said that "every drama of Shakespeare is an extended metaphor". Thus, the fundamental fact which bas to be determined where charge of violation of the copyright is made! by th' plaintiff ll;gainst the defendant is to determine whether or not the defendant not only adopted the idea of the copyrighted work but has also adopted the manner, arrangement, situation to situation, scene to scene with minor changes or super additions or embellishment here and there. Indeed, if on perusal of the copyrighted work the defendant's work appears to be transparent rephrasing\ or copy of substantial and material part of the origiual, the charge of plagiarism must stard proved. Care however must be taken to see whether the defendant has merely disguised piracy or bas actna1ly reproduced the original in different form, different tone, different tenor so as to infuse new life into the idea of the copyrighted work adapted by him. In the latter case there is no violation of the copyright.

Thus, on careful consideration and elucidation of the various authorities and th>' case law on the subject diScussed above, the follow-H ing propositions emerge :

1. There can be no copyright in an idea, subject matter, themes,

plots or historical or legendary facts and violation of the copyright in

such cases is confined to the form, manner and arrangement and ex· pression of the idea by the author of the copyright work.

2. Where the same idea is being developed in differen~ manner, it is manifest that the source being common, similarities are bound to -0ccur. In such case the courts should determine whether ·or not the similarities are on fundamental or substantial aspects of the mode of ~xpression adopted in the copyrighted work. If the defendant's work is nothing but literal imitation of the copyrighted work with some variations here and there it would amount to violation of the copy-right. In other words, in order to be actionable the copy must be <5Ubstantial and material one' which at once leads to the conclusion that the defendant is guilty of an act of piracy.

3. One of the surest and the safest test to determine whether or not there has been violation of copyright is to see if the reader, specta-tor or the viewer after having read or seen both the works is clearly of the opinion ~nd gets an unmistakable impression that the subsequent work appears to be copy of the original.

4. Where the t4eme is the same but is presented and treated diffe-rently so that the subsequent work becomes completely new work, no question of violation of copyright arises.

5. Where however apart from the similarities appearing in the two works there are also material and broad dissimilarities·. which negative the intention to copy the original and the coincidences appearing in the two works are clearly incidental no infringement of the copyright comes into existence.

6. As violation of copyright amounts to an act of piracy it must be proved by clear and cogent evidence after applying the various tests laid down by the case law discussed above.

7. Where however the question is of the violation of the copyright of stage play by film producer or Director the task of the plaintiff becomes more difficult to prove piracy. It is manifest that unlike stage play filni has much broader prospective, wider field and big~er. backgr.ound where the defendants can by introdudng variety of mc1dents give colour and complexion different from the manner in which the copyrighted work has expressed the idea. Even so if the ~iewer after seeing the film gets totality of impression that the film rs by and large copy of the original play, violation of the copyright may be said to be proved. 17-520SCI/78

We would now endeavour to apply the principles enunciated above and the tests laid down by us to the facts of the present case in order to determine whether or not the plaintiff has been able to prove the charge of plagiarism and violation of copyright levelled against the defendant by the plaintiff. The learned trial Judge who had also had the advantage of seeing the picture was of the opinion that the film taken as whole is quite different from the play written by the plaintiff. In order to test the correctness of the finding of the trial Court we also got the play read to us by the plaintiff in the presence of counsel for the parties and have also seen the film which was screened at C.P.W.D. Auditorium, Mahadev Road, New Delhi. This was done merely to appreciate the judgment of the trial Court and the evidence led by the parties and was not at all meant to be just substitute for the evidence led by the parties.

To begin with, we would like to give summary of the play Hum Hindustani which is supposed to' have been plagiarized by the defen-dants. The script of the play Ex. P .1 has been placed before us and we have gone through the same.

The main theme of the play is provincialism and the prejudice of persons belonging to one State against persons belonging to other States. In the play however the author chooses two families, viz., Punjabi family and Madrasi family to show what havoc can be caused by provincial parochialism possessed by the two families. The Punjabi family and the Madrasi family were living as close neighbours ·having good and cordial relations and are on visiting terms with each other. The Punjabi consists of Dewan Chand, contractor, his wife Krishna, their grown up daughter Chander and son Tinnu aged about 8 or 10 years. The Madrasi family however cousists of Subramaniam, Government official, his wife Minakshi and grown up son Amni and daughter Pitto who is aged about 8 or 10 years. As result oi the close association between the two families it appears that Amni the son of Subramaniam falls in love with Chander the daughter of Dewan Chand of the Punjabi family. When the parents are out Amni and Chander meet and talk. Unfortunately, however, the parents of bITfu Amni and Chander are extremely adverse to the matrimonial union of Amni and Chander because the two families belong to two different provinces. When they get some scent of the love affair between Amni and Chander the parents of Chander make serious attempt to find suitable match for her amongst their own caste namely .Punjabis. Similarly, the parents of Amni also. try to arrange match for him amongst Madrasis. For this purpose, the services of marriage broker named Dhanwantri are enlisted by both the parties without knowing

that Dhanwantri was trying to negotiate marriages for both the couples. Later on, when this fact is discovered the relations of the two families become strained. Amni l!]ld Chander also persuade Dhanwantri to assist them in bringing about _their marriage by persuading their parents to agree. This gives chance to Dhanwantri to make lot of money out of the two couples. Dewan Chand and his wife Krishna in sheer desparaiion hurriedly arranged the marriage of their daughter Chander to Bansi, simpleton, son of Murari Lal who is friend of Dewan Chand. In fact, Dewan Chand is not very impressed with Bansi but in view of the critical situation arising out of the love affair between his daughter and Amni he prefers Bansi to the Madrasi boy. When Chander and Amni come to know of this Chander asked Amni to speak to his parents in free and frank manner and express his strong desire to marry Chander. Amni who appears to be cowardly fellow prefers to commit suicide rather than dare to talk out this matter with his parents. Realising that no hope is left for Chander and Amni to go through the marriage ceremony both of them entered into suicidal pact and wrote letters to their parents indicating their intention to commit suicide because they were not prepared to marry anybody else. Dhanwantri, however, intervenes and persuades Chander and Amni not to commit suicide as according to him they were not destined to die unless they had been actually married. Mean-while, the parents of Amni and Chander on getting the suicide note mourn the loss of their children and it now dawns upon them that they had committed the saddest mistake of their life in refusing to marry the coupk and repent for their ad. Just at that time Amni and Chander appear on the scene after having been married to each other. The marriage was performed by Dhanwantri himself. Thus ends the story with the realisation by both the families that provincialism helps nobody. This in short is the story of the play written by the appel-lant.We might mention that before the play starts the author show some voices reciting various persons proclaiming that they come from diffe-rent States like the slogan that they belong to particular state rather than that they belong to India.

Analysing therefore the essential features of the play the position is as follows :-

J. That the central idea of the play is based on provincialism and parochialism.

2. The evils of provincialism are illustrated by the cordial relations of the two families being married because of an

apprehended marriage tie which according to both the fami-lies was not possible where they belonged to different States.

3. That the Madrasi boy Amni is coward and in spite ot his profound love for Chander he does not muster sufficient courage to talk the matter out with his parents.

4. That in sheer desperation while the parents of the families are trying to arrange match for the couple belonging to the same State Amni lU!d Chander enter into suicidal pact and write letters to their parents intimating their intention.

5. It was only after the letters are perused by the parents that they realise the horror of parochialism and are repentant for having acted so foolishly.

6. That after thls realisation comes the married couple Amni and Chander appear before the parents and thus all is well that ends well.

As the play was read to us by the appellant we find that it was very exquisitely presented and the plot was developed with great skill. It must be noted however that the author in writing out the play has concentrated only on one aspect of provincialism namely whether there can be marriage between the persons belonging to one State with those belonging to other States. This is the only aspect of pro-vincialism which has been stressed in the play. The play does not touch any other aspect nor does it contain anything to throw light on the evils of society or that of dowry etc. We have mentioned theMl facts particularly .because the film revolves around not only the aspect of marriage but other aspects also which are given the same impor-tance as the problem of marriage.

We shall now give the summary of the fihn. The script of which is Ex. D-2. The film starts showing Anand young graduate from Punjab who comes to New Delhi for course in Radio Engineering. At the Railway Station Anand meets Madrasi girl Janaki and due to some misunderstanding an altercation between the two takes place, as result of which J anaki feels that Anand was trying to tease her. Thereafter Anand comes and stays in Sarai opposite the Rai!Way Station, but he is allowed to stay there only for three days after which he was expected to find accommodation elsewhere. Thereafter Anand runs from house to house trying to get some accommodation but is sadly disappointed because wherever he goes he finds that in every case the landlord is not prepared to give the house to any person who

does not belong to his province. We might mention here that this is one of the very important aspect of provincialism which pervades through tpe entire film, viz., that so parochial are the landlords that they were not even prepared to let out their houses or rooms to any person coming from outside their State. This particular aspect is completely absent from the story revealed in the play written by the appellant. One Kumaraswamy South Indian attendant at the Sarai comes to the rescue of Anand and suggests to him that he should attire as South Indian and then go to any South Indian landlord to get the house. Thereafter Anand disguised as South Indian approaches one Iyer for giving him accommodation and Iyer is only too glad to accommodate Anand on the ground that Anand is also South Indian. Anand then meets Subramaniam father of Janaki the girl with whom he had an altercation at the station. The film then proceeds involving several sequences of the meeting between Anand and J anaki, Murli Dhar the Principal of Dancing School takes Anand as his stndent and there he is introduced to Janaki who is Professor of Dance and Music in that Institute. Janaki then discovers that Anand is good singer and is slowly and gradually attracted towards him. Janaki invited him to her house for the celebration of Pongal festival and Anand goes there as usual attired as South Indian to wit· ness the dance performance of J anaki. He also comes to know that. Janaki's father Subramaniam does not hold any good opinion about the Punjabis. Thereafter Anand leaves the place after· making an appointment with Janaki lo meet near Rashtrapati Bhawan the follow-ing day. When Anand returns to his house he comes to know that his father Daulat Ram had been transferred to New Delhi and was expected at any moment. Daulat Ram was posted as Manager in the same commercial company in which Subramaniam was employed in . subordinate position. Anand receives his parents and his grown up sister Nikki at t!1e railway station and takes them to his house. He also brings Kumaraswamy, the attendant, at the Sarai to his own house as cook. Thereafter Anand goes out on the pretext of taking his sister Nikki around the city. When they reach the Red Fort he meets Ashok Banerjee, young Bengali painter whom he had met earlier in connection with the search for acconunoda!ion of the house but was refused accommodation because Anand did not happen to be Bengali. Ashok Banerjee is impressed by Nikki and requests her to allow him to make Nikki's portrait. Leaving his sister there Anand meets Janaki and both of them come to the Red Fort. When Anand and Janaki meet Nikki and Ashok, Anand in order to conceal his real identity tells Janaki that Nikki is the daughter of his father's friend, which naturally angers Nikki but later Anand apologies to .. her and 18-520 SCI/78

explains that he did not want J anaki or her father to know that he was ·iiof.:i>Madrasi and thus upset the love affair between Anand and Janaki.. s;;faamaniam, father of Janaki takes fancy for Anand and asks Janaki lei invite Anand's father to the house so that he could negotiate Janaki's marrfage with Anand. This puts Anand in most awkward position. In order to save the situation Anand hits upon an idea by introducing his cook Kumaraswamy to Subramaniam as his father. · Just at that time Daulat Ram happens to pass through Subramaniahl's house and is called in by Subramaniam, but the situ-ation is saved by Kumaraswamy feigning illness as result of which he is taken to room where he hides his face in blanket. Anand leaves the house and returns with false beard posing as doctor. Similarly, Ashok and Nikki get attached to each other and Ashok receives telegram from his father summoning him to Calcutta. Be-fore he leaves Ashok frankly declares his love to Nikki and gets her consent to marry him. The love affair of Nikki however . is not in the knowledge of her parents. Murli Dhar, Principal of the Insti-D tutibn of Dance and Music arranges performance in which the printipal role is played by Anand and J anaki. Up to this time neither Janaki nor her father Subramaniam had ever known the real identity of Anand but both of them had taken him to be South Indian. We might like to add that here the picture makes complete depar-ture from the story contained in the play where both the parents of ,E the couple knew the identity of each other. Before the performance starts Anand tries to disclose his identity to Janaki but is unable to do so because Janaki is in hurry. The performance is applauded by the audience which includes Subramaniam, Daulat Ram and Kumiira~ swamy. In the theatre hall where the perfom1ance is staged Kumar-P aswamy is given prominent place as he is taken to be the, father of Anand. Daufat Ram resents this fact because Kumaraswamy was bis servant. After the performance Murli Dhar introduces Subramaniam Janaki's father to the audience. Murli Dhar then calls Kumaraswamy and introduces him to the audience as the father of Anand. This in-furiates Daulat Ram who comes to the stage and gives thrashing to Kumaraswamy. It is at this stage that the entire truth is· revealed and both Subramaniam and Janaki come to ·know that Anand was not South Indian but Punjabi and his father was Daulat Ram. Daulat Ram also does not like the relations of his son with Janaki because he thinks that if the son marries outside the caste that will create diffi-culties. for the marriage of his daughter Nikki. Subramaniam then starts negotiation for Janaki's marriage with South Indian boy. Anand goes tO Janaki and asks her to delay the negotiations for about month or twn till' Nikki's· marriage is over after which be would marry Janaki.Janaki feels completely let down and when she goes home· she is given serious rebuke by her father. In utter frustration Janaki decides· to commit suicide and leaves _a suicide note. She proceeds to J amuna river. Before_ she is able to jump into the river she is s_aved by Sadhu Ram, Punjabi Ghee Merchant, and friend of Subramaniam. Sadhu Ram scoffs at the people's preference for provincialism and their lack of appreciation of intrinsic human values. He takes Janaki to his own h0use and tells Daulat Ram that she is her niece and· on that basis negotiates for the marria,ge of Janaki with Anand. Daulat Ram accepts the proposal because Janaki appears as Punjabi girl. On receiving the suicide note Subramaniam feels extremely sorry and realises his mistake. In the meanwhile when Daulat Ral)l returns to his house he finds Ashok Banerjee on very intimate terms with Nikki. Daulat Ram gets furious and turns out Ashok from his house. There-after Daulat Ram arranges the marriage of his daughter Nikki with the son of one Girdhari Lal. After the marriage party comes to the house of Daulat Ram, Girdhari Lal insists upon Rs. 15,000-as dowry from Daulat Ram. Daulat Ram does not have such large sum of money and implores Girdhari Lal not to insist and to save his honour but Girdhari Lal is adamant. Daulat Ram tries to enlist the support of his caste men but no one is prepared to oblige him. At this junc-ture Ashok Banerjee appears on the scene and offers his mother's jewellery to Daulat Ram to be given in dowry to Girdhari Lal and thus seeks to save the honour of Daulat Ram. This act of Ashok Banerjee brings about great mental change in the attitude o! Daulat Ram, who stops Nikki's marriage with Girdhari Lal's. son and turns them out along with the men of his brotherhood. Daulat Ram dec-lares his happiness that he has found bigger brotherhood, namely, the Indian brotherhood and asks Ashok to marry Nikki at the same marriage- Panda!. At that time Sadhu Ram requests Daulat Ram that Mohini who is none other than Janaki should also be married to Anand. Sadhu Ram discloses .the true identity of Janaki and theu_ Daulat Ram realises his short-sightendness- and welcomes the idea of the marriage of Anand wit_h J anaki. Subramaniam who is present th_ere feels extre-mely happy and blesses tlie proposed marriage. Ashok·and Nikki as alsoi Anand and J anaki are then married and thus the film ends .

. Analysing the story of the film it would appear that it protrays three main themes : (I) Two aspects of provincialism viz. the role of provincialism in regard to marriage and. in regard--to renting out accommodation.: (2)..Evils_ of.a .caste ridden society, and:J3) :tlte evils ll .Qf ~QWXX·-Sof_ar-as the l.asuwo asp~cts·_are coni:erJ.w.d they do not figure at.all in the play written by the. plaintilI/appellant. close

perusal of the script of the film clearly shows that nil the three aspects mentioned above are integral parts of the story and it is very difficult to divorce one from the other without affecting the beauty and the continuity of the script of the film. Further, it would appear that the treatment of the story of the film is in many respects different from

the story contained in the play.

Learned counsel for the appellant however drew our attention to para 9 of the plaint at pages 18-19 of the paper book wherein as many as 18 similarities have been detailed. The similarities may be quoted thus :-

(i) Before the actual stage play, the producer gives narra-c tive. He states that althongh we describe ourselves as Hindustanis we are not really Hindustanis. He questions the audience as to what they are and various voices are heard. To say in their own provincial language that they are Punjabis, Bengalis, Gujratis, Marathas, Madrasis, Sindhis, etc. In the said fihn the same idea is ·:onveyed and the hero of the picture is shown searching for house in New Delhi and wherever he goes he is con-fronted by landlord who describes himself not as Hindustanis but as Punjabi, Bengali, Gujrati, Maratha, Madarasi or Sindhi.

(ii) Both the said play and the said film deal with the subject of Provincialism.

(iii) Both tho said play and the said film evolve drama around the lives of two families, one Punjabi and the other Madrasi family.

(iv) In both the said play and the said fihn the name of the Madrasi father is Subramanyam.

(v) Both the said play and the said film have their locale in New Delhi.

(vi) Both the said play and the said fihn show cordiality of relations between the two families.

(vii) Both the said play and the said fihn show the disruption of cordial relations as soon as the heads of the families ,. discover the existence of love affair between their children. R (viii) In both the said play and the said fihn, both the parents warn their respective children not to have anyt~ing to do with each other on pain of corporal punishment.

R. G. ANAND v. DELUX FILMS (Fazal Ali, !.) •

(ix) The entire dialogue in both the said play and the said film before and after the, disruption is based upon the superiority of the inhabitants of one Province over the inhabitants of the others.

(x) In both the said play and the said film the girl is shown to be fond of music and dancing.

(xi) In both the said play and the said film the hero is shown as coward to the extent that he has not the courage to .... go to his parents and persuade them to permit him to marry girl hailing from allother Province.

(xii) Both in the said play and in the said film, when the parents of. the girl are discussing marrying her off to some body the girl is listening to the dialogue from behind curtain. Thereafter the girl runs to the boy and explains the situation to him.

(7.iii) In both the said play an:l the said film, the girl writes letter of suicide.

(xiv) In the said play reconciliation takes place when the children of the two families, who were in love, go out to commit suicide by drowning etc., whereas in the said film, it is only the daughter who goes out to commit sui-E cide by drowning herself in the Jamuna.

(xv) In the said play the children are stopped from commit-ting suicide by an astrologer whereas in the said film the girl is stopped from committing suicide by friend of the family.

(xvi) In the said play reconciliation between the two families takes place only after they have experienced the shock of their children committing suicide on account of their provincial feelings whereas in the film, the father of the girl realised his mistake after experiencing the shock of his daughter committing suicide.

(xvii) In both the said play and the said film, stress is laid on the fact that a!thougll India is one country, yet there is acute feeling of provincialism between persons hailing from its various States even though they work together and live as neighbcurs. (xviii) Both in the said play and in the said film, even the dialogue cen!res around the sam~ subject of provincialism.

[1979] 1 S.C.R.

/ In the course of the argument also our attention was drawn to comparative compilation of the similarities in the film and the play. The learned trial Judge after considering the similarities was of the opinion that the similarities are on trivial points artd do not have the effect of making the film substantial and material imitation of the play. Moreover apart from the fact that the similarities and coin-cidences mentioned above are rather insignificant as pointed out by th3 trial Judge and the High Court, in our opinion, they are clearly explainable by and referable to the central idea, namely, evils of provincialism· and parochialism which is common to both the play and the film. Nothing therefore turns upon the similarities cate-gorised by the plaintiff (in para 9 of the plaint); in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case.

After having gone through the script of the play and the: film we are inclined to agree with the opinion of the Courts below. We have already pointed out that mere similarities by themselves are not suffi-cient to raise in inference of colourable imitation. On the other hand, there are quite number of dissimilarities also, for instance :

(i) In the play provincialism comes on the surface only when the question of marriage of Amni with Chander crops up but in the picture it is the starting point of the story when Anand goes around from door to door in search of accommodation but is refused the same because he does not belong to the State from which the landlord hails as resurt thereof Anand has to masqueraae hini-self as Madrasi. This would, therefore, show that the treatment of the subiec.t of provincialism in the film is quite different from that in the play and is actually new . theme which is not developed or stresse<,I in the play.

(ii) Similarly, in the play the two families are fully aware of the identity of each other whereas in the film they are not and in fact it is only when the dal\ce performance of Janaki and Anand is staged that the identity of the two families is disclosed which forms one of the important cli-maxes of the film. Thus, the idea of proviliciaJism itself is presented in manner or form quite · different from that adopted in the play.

(iii.) .In the film there is no suicidal pact between the lovers but only suicide note is left by Jaha1d Whereas in the ·p1lly both the· lovcr.s··decide ·to end· their livcs:aritl enter into suicidal pact and leave suicide n:ote 'to this effect.

. -. ~ -. ,

Furthermore, while in the play Amni and. Chan.der ~et married and then appear before the parents in the p1c· . ture the story takes completely different tum with the intervention of Sadhu Ram who does not allow J anaki to commit suicide but keeps her with him disguised as his niece and the final climax is reaclied in the last scene when Janaki's real identity is disclosed and Subramaniam also finds out that his daughter is alive.

(iv) [The story ][in ][lhe ][play revolves around ][only ][two ][families, ]namely, the Punjabi and the Madrasi families, but in the film there are three important families, namely; the Pun-jabi family, the Madrasi family and the Bengali family and very great stress is laid down in the film on the role played by Ashok Banerjee of the Bengali family who makes supreme sacrifice at the end which turns the tide and brings about complete revolution in the mind and ideology of Daulat Ram.

( v) The film depicts the evil of caste ridden society and exc poses the hollowness of such society when, in spite of repeated requests no member of the brotherhood of Daulat Ram comes to his rescue and ultimately it is left to Ashok Banerjee to retrieve the situation. This aspect of the matter is completely absent in the play.

(vi) The film depicts another important social evil, namely, the evil of dowry which also appears to be tlie climax of the story of the film and the horrors of dowry are exhic bited and demonstrated in very practical and forceful fashion. The play however does not deal with this aspect at all. The aspects mentioned above which are absent from the play are not mere surplusage or embellishments in the story of the film but are important and substantial parts of the story.

The effect of the dissimilarities pointed out above clearly go to show that they far outweigh the effect of the similarities mentioned in para 9 of the plaint set out above. Moreover, even if we examine the similarities mentioned by the plaintiff they are trifling and trivial and, touch insignificant points and do not appear t0> be of substan-tial nature. The mere fact that .the name of the Madrasi father was Sul\ramaniam· in both the film and the play, is hardly of any signifi-

(1979] 1 S.C.R.

cance because the name of particular person cannot be the subject matter of copyright because these are common names.

After careful consideration of the essential features of the film and the play we are clearly of the opinion that the plaintiff has not proved by clear and cogent evidence that the defendants committed colour-B able imitation of the play and have thus violated the copyright of the plaintiff.

It was lastly contended by counsel for the appellant that the cor-respondence between the plaintiff and the defendant would show that defendant No. 2 himself was aware of the story contained in the play even before he proceeded to make the film in New Delhi. This is un-doubtedly so because defendant No. 2 admits in his evidence that he had come to Dell1i and the entire play was narrated to him by the plaintiff. There is however serious controversy on the question as to whether the defendant after hearing play said that the play was not suitable for being filmed as alleged. The plaintiff, however, seems to suggest that defendant No. 2 was undoubtedly attracted by the play and it was on the basis of this play that he decided to make the film. However, there is no reliable evidence to show that defendant No. 2 at any time expressed his intention to film the play written by the plaintiff. There can be· no doubt that defendant No. 2 was aware of the story contained in the play and part of the fihn was undoubtealy to some extent inspired by the play written by the plaintiff. But the definite case of defendant No. 2 also is that he was in search of story based on provincialism and the play written by the plaintiff may have provided the opportunity for defendant No. 2 to produce his film though with differ~nt story, different theme, different characteri-sation and different climaxes.

Thus, applying the principles enunciated above and the various tests laid down to determine whether in particular case there has been violation of the copyright we are of the opinion that the film produced by the defendants cannot be said to be substantial or material copy of the play written by the plaintiff. We also find that the treatment of the film and the manner of its presentation on the screen is quite different from the one written by the plafutiff at the stage. We are also satisfied that after seeing the play and the film no prudent person can get an impression that the film appears to be copy of the original play nor is there anything to show that the fihn is substantial and material copy of the play. At the most the cent-ral idea of the play, namely, provincialism is undoubtedly the subject matter of the film aloog with .other ideas also but it is well settled

that mere idea cannot be the subject matter of copyright. Thus, the present case does not fulfil the conditions laid down for holding that the defendants have made co!ourable imitation of the play.

On close and careful comparison of the play and the picture but for the central idea (provincialism which is not protected by copy· right), from scene to scene, situation to situation, in climax to anti-climax, pathos, bathos, in texture and treatment and purport and presentation, the picture is materially different from the play. As al-ready indicated above, applying the various tests outlined above we are unable to hold that the defendants have committed an act of piracy in violating the copyright of the play.

Apart from this the two courts of fact, having considered the en-tire evidence, circumstances and materials before them have come to finding of fact that the defendants committed no violation of tne copyright. This Court would be slow to disturb the findings of fact arrived at by the courts below particularly when after having gone through the entire evidence, we feel that the judgment of the courts below are absolutely correct.

The result is that the appeal fails_ and is accordingly dismissed. But in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs in this Court only.

JASWANT SINGH, J.-Bearing in mind the well recognised principles and tests to determine whether there has been an infringement of the law relating to copyright in particular case which were brought to our notice by the counsel on both sides and which have been elaborately considered and discussed by my learned brother Murtaza Faza! Ali in the course of the judgment prepared by him, we proceeded at the re-quest of the counsel to bear the script of the play "Hum Hindustani" which . was read out to us by the plaintiff himself in dramatic style and to see the film "New Delhi" produced by defendants 1 and 2, the exhibition of which was arranged by the defendant& themselves. On careful comparison of the script of the plaintiff's copyrighted play with the aforesaid film, although one does not fail to discern 11 few resemblances and similarities between the play and the film, the said resemblances are not material or :Substantial and the degree of similarities is not such as to lead one to think that the film taken as whole constitutes an unfair appropriation of the plaintiff's copyrighted work. In fact, large majority of material incidents, episodes and situations portrayed by defendants 1 and 2 in their aforesaid film are :Substantially different from the plaintiff's protected work and the two social evils viz. caste system and dowry system sought to be exposed

and eradicated by defendants 1 and 2 by means of their aforesaid film do not figure at all in the plaintiff's play. As such I am in complete agreement with the conclusions arrived at by my learned brother Murtaza Fazal Ali that there has been no breach on the part of the defendants of the plaintiff's copyright and concur with the judgment proposed to be deli)'ered by him.

PATHAK, J.-It appears from comparison of the script of the stage play "Hum Hindustani" and the script of the film "New Delhi" that the authors of the film script have been influenced to degree by the salient features of the plot set forth in the play script. There can be little doubt from the evidence that the authors of the film script were aware of the scheme of the play. But on the other hand, the story portrayed by the film travels beyond the plot delineated in the play. In the play, the theme of provincial parochialism is illustrated only in the opposition to relationship by marriage between two families hailing from different parts of the country. In the film the theme is also illus-trated by the hostile attitude of proprietors of lodging accommodation towards prospective lodgers who do not belong to the same provincial community .. The plot then extends to the evils of the dowry system, which is theme independent of provincial parochialism. There arc \still other themes e.mbraced within the plot of the film. Nonetheless, the question can arise whether there is an infringement of copyright even though tlie essential features of the play can be said to correspond to part only of the plot of the film. This can arise even where changes are effected while planning the film so that certain immaterial features in the film differ from what is seen in the stage play. The relative position in which the principal actors stand may be exchanged or extended and embellishments may be introduced in the attempt to show that the plot in the film is entirely original and bears no resem-blance whatever to the stage play. All such matters fell for considera-tion in relation to the question whether the relevant part of the plot in the film is merely colourable imitation of the essential structure of the stage play. If the treatment of the theme in the stage play has been made the basic of one of the themes in the film story and the e'ssentiaj structure of that treatment is clearly and distinctly identifiable in the film story, it is not necessary, it seems to me, for the Court to examine all the several themes embraced within the plot of the film in order to decide whether infringement has been established. In the attempt to show that he is not guilty of infringement of copyright, it is always possible for person intending to take advantage of the intellec-tual effort and labours of another to so develop his own product that it covers wider field than the area included within the scope of the earlier product, and in the .common area covered by the two productioruto introduce changes in order to disguise the attempt at plagiarism. If reappraisal of the facts in the present case had been open in this .court, I am not sure that I would not have differed from the view taken on the facts by the High Court, but as the matter stands, the trial Court as well as the High Court have concurred in the finding that such similaritie§ as exist between the stage play "Hum Hindustani" and the film "New Delhi" do not make out case of infringement. The dissimilarities, in their opinion, are so material that it is not possible to say that the appellant's copyright has been infringed. This Court is extremely reluctant to interfere with concurrent findings of fact reached by the Courts below and for that reason I would allow the judgment under appeal to stand. In another, and pe.rhaps clearer case, it may be necessary for this Court to interfere and remove the impression which may have gained ground that the copyright belonging to an author can be readily infringed by making immaterial changes, introducing insub~­tantial differences and enlarging the scope of the original theme so !hat veil of apparent dissimilarity is thrown around the work now pro-duced. The court will look strictly at not only blatant examples of ·copying bnt also at reprehensible attempts at colourable imitation.

The appeal is dismissed, but without any order as to costs.

Appeal dismissed.