These two appeals arise out of an alleged breach of copyright in connection with the publication known as the Tinnevelly Vakya Panchangam which is a Tamil almanac giving information necessary for casting horoscopes, fixing fasts, festivals and ceremonies with reference to the phases of the moon and other relevant astronomical materials. It is distinguishable from an ordinary almanac in that it is prepared on the basis of calculations based on some 248 Vakyams or aphorisms embodying rules of astrological science. It is common ground, that this particular Panchangam has been published for over 60 years from manuscripts furnished by the first defendant and his father. The publisher was up to 1940 the second plaintiff in the suit out of which Appeal No. 301 of 1945 arises.

The first defendant then quarrelled with the second plaintiff and as a result of that quarrel, he entered into an agreement, Ex. P-1, dated 20th February, 1941, with the first plaintiff. Under this agreement the first defendant was to cast the almanac known as the Tinnevelly Vakya Panchangam which he has been composing for about 60 years and deliver the manuscript to the first plaintiff for printing and publication for a period of five years from the year Chitrabanu, 1942, to the end of the year Vyaya, 1946. The first plaintiff was to pay the first defendant Rs. 350 per annum for his work. The agreement fixes the date within which the manuscript should be delivered in each year and prohibits the first defendant from writing or delivering a copy of the almanac to any one else. It is also stipulated that the first defendant should have the right to insert in the almanac eight pages of matter in Tamil and eight pages of matter in Grantham in addition to the almanac proper, and should himself be given 100 copies of the published work. Then follow the provisions regarding the manner of payment of the fee and the adjustment of advances.

On the basis of this agreement the panchangams for 1942 and 1943 were published; but in May, 1943, the first defendant sent a notice, Ex. P-8, to the first plaintiff alleging that the latter had broken the agreement by printing on the panchangam the name of the second plaintiff as publisher, Knowing that the first defendant had broken off relations with the second plaintiff and wished to have no more to do with him. The first defendant called upon the first plaintiff to withdraw from circulation all copies of the calendar bearing the second plaintiff’s name and to undertake not to use the second plaintiff’s name thereafter. If he was unwilling to give this undertaking, the first defendant proposed to rescind the contract. At the time when this notice was sent, the first defendant had already received two small advances in respect of the almanac for the year Dharana, 1944. The first plaintiff replied to this notice denying that there was any understanding that no other person’s name should appear on the almanac and claiming the right to assign to the second plaintiff. On 27th August, 1943, the first plaintiff sent a money order for Rs. 80 due to the first defendant under the contract This money order was refused whereupon the first plaintiff filed a suit against the first defendant, O.S. No. 403 of 1943 out of which Second Appeal No. 750 of 1945 arises. In that suit the individual whom we have referred to as the second plaintiff was not a party, and the suit as originally framed sought relief only against the first defendant, the prayer being for specific performance of the contract to supply manuscripts of the panchangam for the three years for which the agreement still had to run, or alternatively to pay Rs. 900 as damages for breach of the contract. The first plaintiff also filed an application in which he prayed for an injunction restraining the first defendant from getting his manuscript published by any one else. In opposition to that injunction application, the first defendant filed a counter-affidavit in which he ass