Infringement of copy right.

In 1924 Mr. E.M. Forster, the English Novelist, published "A Passage to India", a work of fiction which was also a penetrating study of the Indo-Anglican social climate; the work since became famous, and has recently been dramatised. Certain exclusive rights of publication in this work were assigned by Mr. Forster to Edward Arnold (Publishers), Limited, by an Indenture of Agreement, in March, 1924. In 1955-56, the University of Madras prescribed "A Passage to India", as a text-book for the students taking the B.A. Degree Mr A.N. Parasuram (respondent) published a Guide-book lor students to the novel "A Passage to India", in or about December, 1954. Two actions were instituted in the Original Civil Jurisdiction of this Court, respectively by Mr A.N. Parasuram (respondent) on the one hand, and Mr. E.M. Forster and Messrs. Edward Arnold (Publishers), Limited on the other, both relating to the alleged infringement of the copyright in the original work by the publication of the Guide-book. They were tried together by Ganapatia Pillai, J., and dealt with by means of a common judgment, the learned Judge held that there was no such infringement by substantial reproduction of the original novel and that the Guidebook of Mr. Parasuram amounted to an " independent literary effort on his part". The suits were disposed of in the light of these and other findings, and the present appeal is by Mr. Forester and Messrs. Edward Arnold (Publishers), Limited, the plaintiffs in C.S. No. 15 of 1957, which was dismissed. The sole question that concerns us in the appeal is the alleged infringement of copyright in the original literary work of Mr. Forster; there were ancillary questions that arose for determination, but they do not now concern us.

There is a very extensive case-law available upon the subject and we have also been referred to passages from the following works, namely 8 Halsbury (Simonds Edition), page 372 et seq., Copinger (Ninth Edition), Russell-Clarke on Copyright and Industrial Designs (1951 Edition), and Corpus Juris Secundum, Volume 18. In this context itself, it may be convenient to notice that several of the leading authorities were also reviewed by Rajagopala Ayyangar, J., in Blackwood Sons v. Parasuram1. Before proceeding to any discussion of the principles, as could be gleaned from the case-law and standard treatises, we think, however that it is of some importance first to set down the relevant part of the Copyright Act III of 1914 which admittedly governs the rights of parties, though subsequently repealed by Act XIV of 1957. Section 1 (2) of the Act runs as follows:

"(2) For the purposes of this Act, ‘copyright’ means the sole right to produce or reproduce the work or any substantial part thereof in any material form whatsoever, to perform, or in the case of a accure to deliver, the work or any substantial part thereof in public; if the work is unpublished, to publish the work or any substantial part thereof; and shall include the sole right-

(a) to produce, reproduce, perform, or publish any translation of the work;

(b)in the case of a dramatic work, to convert it into a novel or other non-dramatic work;

(c)in the case of a novel or other non-dramatic work, or of an artistic work, to convert it into a dramatic work, by way of performance in public or otherwise;

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

and to authorise any such acts as aforesaid.

“(3) For the purpose of this Act, publication in relation to any work, means the issue of copies of the work to the public, and does not include the performance in public of a dramatic or musical work, the delivery in public of a lecture, the exhibition in public of an artistic work, or the construction of an architectural work of art..................

2. (1) Copyright in a work shall be deemed to be infrin