- (1.) THE suit in appeal was brought by the plaintiffs for injunction, accounting and for delivery of the copies of a .rival publication called 'Hisabi Darpan' which had been published in 1954 by the defendant together with its manuscript, plates and blocks that may be found in possession, custody or control of the defendant, his agents and ser vants.
(2.) IT was alleged that the first plaintiff Shyam Lal Paharia was the author and plaintiff No. 2 Madbai Ram Paharia the publisher of a book 'Hisabi Machine." It was a ready reckoner giving tables of rates. It was published in 1941 and its second edition was brought out in 1944. According to the plaintiffs, it was thought to bring out a cheaper edition of the book with the title 'Hisabi Darpan', but meanwhile the defendant came to know of the plaintiffs' intention and he published the impugned book 'Hisabi Darpan' in 1954. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant's book was a "colourable imitation and slavish copy of the various charts contained in the plaintiff's book". The price of the im pugned book was Rs. 1-8-0 per copy and the plaintiffs alleged that since its publi cation the sale of their book fell down considerably. They claimed accounts from the defendant of the profits made by him on the sale of the impugned book and the award of such profits to them. The defendant contested the suit and contended that the plaintiffs' books 'Hisabi Machine" and Hisabi Darpan were neither original or literary works but consisted simply mathematical cal culations and the plaintiffs could not claim any copyright in their publications. The plaintiffs did not press their con tention that the defendant had infringed their copyright in "Hisabi Darpan" but confined their claim to the infringement of the copyright in their publication 'Hisabi machine' by the defendant in his publication 'Hisabi Darpan'.
(3.) THE court below held that (1) in view of the definition of the word 'literary work' in Section 35 of the Copyright Act of 1911 adopted by the Indian Copyright Act, 1914 the calcula tion charts could be treated as literary work within the meaning of Section 35 of the Act of 1911; (2) the plaintiff's copyright had not been infringed by the publication of the defendant's book 'Hisabi Derpant and (3) the plaintiffs were not entitled to any damages. On the aforesaid findings the learned District Judge of Jhansi dis missed the suit. Aggrieved from the decree of the learned Judge the plaintiffs have come in appeal before me. ;