R G ANAND Vs. DELUX FILMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The .Plaintiff has appealed to this Court from the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge. Delhi, dated 5th September, 1960 dismissing the plaintifi.appellant's suit for permanent injunction against the defendants, their agents and servants, restraining them from exhibiting the film 'New Delhi' at any place whatsoever and for accounts of the profits made by the defendants upto the dale of the suit.

(2.) The plaintiff who is an architect by profession and carries on the said business in the panne ship under the name and style of M/S. Anand Apte and Jhabvala at Delhi, also claims to be a Playwright, Dramatist and producer of Stage plays. He claims to have written and produced at Delhi and other places plays entitled "Desh Hamara", "Azadi" "'Elections' and "Ham Hindustani", having produced several other plays as well. The present litigation is concerned with the play "Hum Hindustani" which, according to the plaintiff s case, was written by him in Hindi in or about 1953. It was produced by the plaintiff for the first time from 6th to 9rh February 1954 at Wavell Theatre, New Delhi, under the auspices of the Indian National Theatre. This play received great approbation from the press and the public and as a result of its popularity, was staged again from 11th to 14th February 1954 at Wavell Theatre, New Delhi and from 22nd to 29th September 1954 at the site of the Indian,National Theatre, New Delhi It was staged on the Prize Distribution Day of the National Drama Festival arranged by the Government of India explored the possibility of its exhibition on the screen In November, 1954, he received a letter dated 19th November. 1954 from Mohan Sehgal, defendant No. 2, informing the plaintiff that one Mr Balwant Gargi, a common friend of the parties, had supplied the said defendant with a synopsis of the play "Hum Hindustani". A request was made to the plaintiff to supply a copy of the said play with the object of producing it on the stage and also of exhibiting it on the screen. The plaintiff on 30th November, 1954 informed the said defendant that since this play had been selected for being staged during the National Drama Festival on 11th December, 1954, the said defendant sould come and see it for himself whereafter the potentialities that it possessed for its being screened could be discussed. Round about January, 1955, Mohan Sehgal, defendant No. 2, and Inder Raj Anand, defendant No. 3, came to Delhi and the plaintiff in his office read out to them and explained the entire play, the parties also discussing the potentialities for making a film. Mohan Sehgal, defendant No. 2, promised to let the plaintiff know his reaction in due course, but the plaintiff did not hear from him in this connection thereafter. In or about May, 1955, Mohan Sehgal announced the production of a motion picture entitled "NEW DELHI". One Mr. Thapa, one of the artists in the play produced by the plaintiff, who was in Bombay at the relevant time informed the plaintiff that the proposed motion picture "NEW DELHI", announced by defendant No. 2 was based on the plaintiff's play "Hum Hindustani" On 30th May, 1955, the plaintiff's accordingly wrote to defendant No. 2 expressing his concern over the adoption of his play for the proposed motion picture 'NEW DELHI". On 9th June 1955, defendant NO. 2 treatment, dramatic construction, characters, plot twists and dialogues of the motion picture had not the remotest association wilh the plaintiff s play. On this assurance, the plaintiff did not pursue the matter further. The picture NEW DELHI" was announced to be released in Delhi and 15 stations of U. P. and Punjab on 7th September 1955 at various picture houses, including the picture-houses run by defendants Nos. 16 to 18 at Delhi and New Delhi. It was also announced to be released in Bombay in the cinema houses run by defendants Nos. 19 to 21 from 14th September 1956 Indeed, the picture was actually released on those dates. In the announcement, it was stated that defendants Nos. I and 2 were the producers of the said picture and defendants Nos. 2 to 8 had written the story and screenplay and defendants Nos. 5 to 15 were the distributors of the picture in the various territories in India and abroad. It is in these circumstances that the suit. out of which the present appeal arises was instituted by R. G. Anand plaintiff-appellant in September, 1956. In the plaint, 18 points were stated to bring out the act of piracy committed by the defendants by infringing the plaintiff's copyright in the play "Hum Hindustani." The defendants had in fact adopted the plaintiff's play as the subject matter of their film without the plaintiff's knowledge or consent.

(3.) In a joint written statement by defendants Nos. I and 2. the plaintiff's contentions were controverted and it was pleaded that defendant No. 2, who was the sole proprietor of M/s. Delux Films, defendant No. I, was also a film director with two previous box-office successes to his credit viz , the films 'Aulad' and 'Adhikar'. In or about November, 1904, defendant No. 2 discussed with one Mr. BalwantGargi. a playwright of repute, some new ideas for the stage and the scrcen and during the discussion, defendant No. 2 told Mr. Gargi that the f rmer was interested in introducing a motion picture with "provincialism" as its theme. In the context of this discussion, Mr. Gaigi enquired from defendant No. 2 if the latter was interested in hearing a play called "Hum Hindustani" produced by Mr. Anand of New Delhi, which play had also "provincialism" as its theme. On this occasion, Mr. Gargi narrated the list of the said play to defendant No 2. Both the defendants denied that Mr, Gargi had supplied to defendant No. 2 a synopsis of the play. According to the averments of these defendants, the plaintiff had read out to defendant No. 2 his play sometime in November. 1954 in the presence of Mr. Rajinder Bhalia and Mr. Mohan Kumar, who were working as Assistant Directors under the second defendant. After the plaintiff had read out his play to the second defendant, the potentialities for making it into a film were immediately discussed and the second defendant clearly indicated his mind to the plaintiff by telling him that the plav was all right for the amatour stage, but it was far too inadequate for the purpose of making a full-length commercial motion picture. In paragraph No. 6 by these two defendants, it was pleaded that the defendants would crave leave to refer to the whole of the appreciation of the plav when produced, it being added that mere similarity in theme, even if there be any, was not sufficient for founding a cause of action for a suit for infringement of copyright The defendants also pleaded in paragraph No. 9 of the written statement that they would refer to the script of the play "Hum Hindustani ' filed by the plaintiff in the Court and to the script of the picture ' NEW DELHI" to be filed in the Court by them and further to the duly censored print of the said picture for the purpose of determining whether there was any infringirent of the plaintiff's copyright, as alleged in the plaint. The comparison drawn by the plaintiff between the play aid the picture was, according to their plea, misconceived and ill founded. All the 18 points referred to in the plaint were commented upon and the plaintiff s pleas controverted. It is unnecessary to refer to the written statements filed by the other defendants.