Sinha, J. - (1.) This is an application for the appointment of a receiver of the proceeds of the picture 'Jighansa', from the Cinema Houses mentioned in the petition, alternatively for an injunction restraining the defendants, their servants and agents, from realizing, withdrawing or receiving any money in respect of the said film, and for an order directing the defendants to keep a separate account in respect of all receipts and disbursements in respect of the said film, and for other reliefs.
(2.) The facts are briefly as follows. There was a well-known writer of detective novels in the Bengali language, of the name of Panchkari De. Among the many Books that he wrote, there is one called 'Mrityu Bivisika'. This book relates to the mystery surrounding the deaths of several persons, and a Gigantic Hound with a luminous face which was connected with such details. Those who have read the book, 'Hound of the Baskervilles" by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, will readily recognise the story. In fact, the book is almost a verbatim translation of that famous book. The names of course have been changed and the venue shifted to a place in India, but otherwise the two books are the same, theme by theme, incident by incident, and as I said, almost word by word. The author did not acknowledge that it was a translation, took no permission for that purpose, and even in the plaint and petition in this suit nothing has been mentioned to that effect. It is the defendants who have raised that point. I have myself compared the two books and find that the comment is more than justified. Even the half-tone pictures in the original edition of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's famous book, have been faithfully copied.
(3.) Panchkari De died in 1945, and the plaintiff is his son. He claims to have a copyright in the books of his father including the book 'Mrityu Bivisika'. His grievance is that the defendants have produced and are exhibiting a cinema film called 'Jighansa' which infringes his copyright, publishing right and performing right in the said book 'Mrityu Bivisika'. The first two defendants are the producers, the third defendant the distributor and the fourth defendant is the camera man and one of the directors of the film. According to the plaintiff, the plot episode, incident, situations, dialogue and characters in the Bengali book 'Mrityu Bivisika', and the cinema film 'Jighansa' are the same. The defendants naturally dispute this. According to the defendants, the script and scenario of the film 'Jighansa' were written by a group of writers and technicians and they did not in any way borrow either the plot, or the characters, or the dialogue of the book 'Mrityu Bivisika'. Although they have not said so in so many words in their pleadings, there exists no doubt and it was admitted by learned counsel at the hearing of the application that the film itself is based on the story of the book 'Hound of the Baskervilles' written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. In 'Mrityu Bivisika', the story is of course the same as in the 'Hound of the Baskervilles'. Instead of Sherlock Holmes, we have detective Govindram. The mysterious black hound is there, and of course the mystery is ultimately unraveled by the astute detective. The plot of 'Jighansa' follows the same idea, but the characters have been somewhat altered. Instead of the Gigantic Hound we have a Giant-statued escaped-convict. In the opening chapters of the English book as well as 'Mrityu Bivisika', a girl is killed (together with her pursuer) by a Gigantic Hound, somewhere in the middle of the moors. In the film, the girl jumps out of the window and thus commits suicide. If you compare character by character there are some differences to be observed between the characters as portrayed in the film and the characters as portrayed in the books. It is also alleged that the dialogues in the books and the film are the same. I have compared the dialogue in the book 'Mrityu Bivisika' and the script of the film, but I cannot say that reading the two anyone can say that the one is taken from the other. At the hearing of the application, the script was produced and the plaintiff had every opportunity of scrutinising the same, but no portion could be shown to me which would justify the conclusion that the film had copied the dialogue of the Bengali book.;