SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Telangana) 129

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
G.Radha Rani, J.
Rajkumari Indira Devi - Appellant
Versus
G Satyaki & Ors. - Respondents
C.C.C.A.No.255 of 2018
Decided On : 25-01-2024

Advocates appeared:
Dr. Y. Padmavathi, for the Appellant; Dr. Venkat Reddy Donthi Reddy, Senior Counsel for Sri M.Mallikarjun Reddy, for the Respondent.

The assignment of copyright by an author remains valid unless explicitly revoked in accordance with statutory requirements; acquiescence does not bar copyright claims when infringement is ongoing.

Headnote:(A) Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 18 and 19 - Assignment of copyright - Plaintiff claimed ownership based on a letter dated 02.12.1989 from his father, granting copyrights for literary works. Defendants contended the father revoked these rights via a letter dated 05.01.2006. The court found the latter document was printed, not handwritten, and thus, the original assignment remained valid. (Paras 44-63)

(B) Acquiescence - Delay in asserting copyright claim does not bar suit if ongoing infringement constitutes a continuing cause of action. (Paras 64-78)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, son of late Sri G.Seshendra Sharma, asserted ownership of literary works through a letter of copyright assignment. Defendant No.2 claimed rights based on a subsequent revocation letter, which was found to be fabricated.

Findings of Court:
The trial court concluded the plaintiff was the rightful copyright owner with ongoing right to protect against infringement.

Issues: (1) Validity of plaintiff's copyright ownership. (2) Revocation of rights argued by defendants. (3) Whether suit was barred by limitation and acquiescence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the original assignment of copyright was valid and not canceled, affirming the necessity of evidence for claims regarding revocation and establishing that the plaintiff's rights were active throughout the disputed period.

Result: Appeal dismissed, trial court judgment affirmed.

Table of Content
1. ownership claims under copyright must be substantiated with valid documentation. (Para 1)
2. copyright ownership and assignment dispute. (Para 3 , 4)
3. defendant's assertions against plaintiff's claims. (Para 6 , 7 , 19)
4. appeals must challenge the trial court's conclusions based on evidence presented. (Para 8 , 10 , 18)
5. validation of document existence and execution. (Para 12 , 14 , 57)
6. expert evidence in copyright disputes should corroborate admission declarations. (Para 13)
7. judgment confirmation based on legal facts. (Para 15 , 64 , 78)
8. the court affirms trial findings based on consistent assessments. (Para 20 , 80)

JUDGMENT

G.Radha Rani, J. - This appeal is filed by the appellant who is the defendant No.2 aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 07.02.2018 in O.S.No.419 of 2008 on the file of the XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. The parties are hereinafter referred as arrayed before the trial court.

3. The respondent No.1 is the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed the suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using, publishing, printing and passing off the copyright works titled as "My country, My people" (modern epic) "Naa-desham Naa-prajalu" and other related literary works written by late Sri G.Seshendra Sharma, who was the father of the plaintiff claiming that the plaintiff was the absolute owner of the copyright works of his father and claimed notional damages of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of income and loss of reputation along with costs of the suit.

4. The contention of the plaintiff was that he was the second son and last child of late Sri G.Seshendra Sharma and Smt.Janaki. Late Sri G.Seshendra Sharma was a famous Telugu poet and writer whose works zxwere well identified and were translated into several languages and received innumerable accolades by other academicians, his brethren, the public and literary societies alike during his lifetime. Late Sri G.Seshendra Sharma's works were known for their literary value and public response. Late Sri G.Seshendra Sharma was famously called as Guntur Seshendra Sharma. Out of his love and affection, late Sri G.Seshendra Sharma assigned the copyright works in the literature created by him vide letter dated 02.12.1989 to the plaintiff and transferred all the literary works done by him to the plaintiff. As such, the plaintiff was the sole proprietor of all the literary works written by his father late Sri G.Seshendra Sharma. The plaintiff's father did not retain any rights with him and all rights were transferred to the plaintiff. Pursuant to the letter dated 02.12.1989, the plaintiff had been publishing the books written by his father late Sri G.Seshendra Sharma. The first book was published in the month of April, 1995 titled as "Entakaalam Ee Endamaavulu". The plaintiff had also published the copy of the letter dated 02.12.1989 in the said book. Accordingly, the plaintiff published eight other books titled as "Sahitya Darshini", "Sorabu", "Swarna Hamsa", "Vachindi Votla Rutuvu", "Shodashi, Secrets of Ramayana", "Shabdam nunchi shatabdam varaku" and "Oohalo" containing the original works as well as translation of works written by his father. On 30.05.2007, the plaintiff's father late Sri G.Seshendra Sharma expired. Subsequent to his father's death, the plaintiff published his father's books posthumously beginning with a book titled "Naa Desham - Naa Prajalu", Adhunika Itihasam, "My Country -My People", modern Indian Epic in the month of October, 2007.

4.1. The plaintiff further submitted that late Sri G.Seshendra Sharma survived by his wife Smt.Janaki and other children. On 26.11.2007, there was a public notice issued in the newspaper, "Times of India" and in "Andhra Jyothi" by Smt.Rajkumari Indira Devi Dhanrajgir claiming as wife of late Sri G.Seshendra Sharma and as the owner of the copyright works, and that the same were transferred to her by virtue of letter dated 05.01.2006. The plaintiff issued a reply to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top