Registration of copyright under Section 44 of the Indian Copyright Act is not mandatory for acquiring copyright, and a co-owner cannot grant a license to publish a copyrighted work without the consent of the other co-owners.

( 1 ) THESE two first appeals arise from the judgments and decrees of the District Judge Sultanpur, dated 30th October, 1974, disposing of two suits Nos. 6 of 65 and 8 of 66.

( 2 ) THE relevant facts briefly stated are these. Late Sri Ram Naresh Tripathi was an eminent scholar of Hindi and a poet of repute. He wrote a number of books. He was carrying on business at Allahabad in the name and style of Hindi Mandir Prayag. Ram Naresh Tripathi died in. January, 1962 leaving behind his three sons and his widow Smt. Udaiwanti devi. On his death, the business was shifted to Sultanpur. Amongst others, one of the books which had been written by late Sri Ram Naresh Tripathi was SAPNA khandkavya. This book had gained reputation and popularity in the market. It had also been prescribed by the Delhi University as a Text Book for the Degree of Bachelor of Arts.

( 3 ) ON 7-9-65. Anand Kumar and Jayant Kumar, the two sons of Pt. Ram Naresh Tripathi, brought suit No. 17 of 67 against three defendants. The defendants 1 and 2 were the Printers and publishers of the book named SAPNA whereas the third defendant was their own brother Basant kumar. The allegations made in the plaint were that on 25th August, 1965, the defendant No. 1 without any right and consent of the plaintiffs clandestinely got the book printed by defendant no. 2 and dishonestly wrote "hindi Mandir Prayag" with a view to cheat the public. By having published the said book, the defendants 1 and 2 had infringed the copyright of the plaintiffs of the aforesaid book SAPNA and were liable to make good the loss suffered by them. The allegations made further were that Basant Kumar defendant No. 3 had colluded with defendants 1 and 2 and had given them licence to publish and sell the book SAPNA written by Ram Naresh tripathi, Defendant No, 3, according to the plaintiffs, had no power or authority to grant licence to the defendants 1 and 2 for publication and sale of the book. On these pleadings, the plaintiffs claimed the relief of injunction, damages and accounting.

( 4 ) THE suit was contested by the three defendants. Defendants 1 and 2 filed a joint written statement denying that they had committed any breach of copyright. They alleged that on the representation of Basant Kumar, defendant No. 3, that he was the owner of the book SAPNA, that, the defendants 1 and 2 printed and published 3,000 copies. Basant Kumar defendant No. 3, filed a separate written statement and denied that the plaintiffs had any cause of action to bring the suit. According to him, the suit was motivated by dishonest intention. He claimed that defendant No. 1 was a licencee on his behalf and the impugned publication had been done in good faith. The plea that the suit was not maintainable was also taken.

( 5 ) SUIT No. 3 of 66 had been filed by the plaintiffs of suit No. 17 of 65 for the same reliefs on similar allegations. They claimed that their father Ram Naresh Tripathi had exclusive copyright in the books SAPNA and PATHIK and other books numbering 30, as mentioned in list A attached to the plaint. Basant Kumar defendant No. 3 had no right to give the licence to print the same to defendants 1 and 2.

( 6 ) SUIT No. 8 of 66 was also contested on the same lines as the other suit.

( 7 ) ON the pleadings aforesaid, the trial court framed six issues in suit No. 17 of 65 and four issues in suit No. 8 of 66. Out of these issues, those material for the purpose of the present appeals, are:-Suit no. 17 of 1965.

1. Whether defendant No. 3 permitted defendant No: 1 to print, publish and sell 3,000 copies of the book in question as alleged in Para 11 of the written statement by defendant No. 1? If so, is the authority for publishing valid? 2. Whether the plaintiffs have right to sue? 3. Whether the defendants have infringed the copyright of the plaintiffs as alleged? If so, effect? suit No. 8 of 1966. 1. Whether the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 are owners of the copyright of the books as alleged? 2. Whe