JUDGMENT Bodilly, J. - This is an application by the Petitioner to remove the Respondent's name from the Register of Copyrights kept in Bombay under the provisions of sec. 6 of the Copyright Act of 1847. The points raised on behalf of the Respondent are two. First he says that there is no jurisdiction in this Court to make any order for alteration in the Register at Bombay, and secondly he says that, the Petitioner is not entitled to the copyright and the onus is on him to prove he is a person aggrieved within the meaning of the section. Before dealing with the facts I shall deal with the question of jurisdiction. I think I have jurisdiction to deal with the matter and I am bound to exercise that jurisdiction. Under the Act of 1817, sec. 3 provides that a book of registry wherein may be registered the proprietorship in the copyright of books and assignments thereof in India should be kept in the office of the Secretary to the Government of India for the Home Department and certain provisions are made for the right to inspect the same and to deal with the entries made. It is to be noticed that there is no provision as to where at the time the office referred to was to be situated or any restriction as to where the office might be removed. By sec. 6 of the Act the only Court having jurisdiction to deal with the register for the purpose of varying or expunging an entry was the Supreme Court in Calcutta. The Charter 24 and 25 Vict., cap. 104, sec. 1 provided for the establishment of High Courts in India and sec. 8 for the consequent abolition of the Supreme Court in Calcutta. By sec. 9 of the said Act, all the jurisdiction power and authority vested in any Court abolished by this Act. was revested in the Court, established under the Act. Now, the High Court of Judicature in Port William was one of the Courts so established. 8 for the consequent abolition of the Supreme Court in Calcutta. By sec. 9 of the said Act, all the jurisdiction power and authority vested in any Court abolished by this Act. was revested in the Court, established under the Act. Now, the High Court of Judicature in Port William was one of the Courts so established. By the Copyright Act of 1867 certain alterations in the existing law were made as to the keeping of copyright register and registers under that Act were entitled to be kept in different Presidencies including Bombay and it has been said in the argument before me that the only Court which could deal with the register in Bombay is the High Court in that Presidency. I do not think that that contention should prevail and it is not necessary for me to discuss the question whether the Bombay Court has concurrent jurisdiction. This Court took over all the powers of the Supreme Court including the powers which that Court exercised absolutely in respect of any copyright register. I find nothing in any subsequent Act limiting the power of the Court. T therefore decide I have jurisdiction in this matter. The subject matter of this application are two books dealing with Mahomedan religious matters and the only issue raised on the affidavit before me is by the Petitioner, on the one hand, that the books were written by one Omar and were written and published by him in British territory, that is in Singapur, and that the right to publish was assigned by him to the present applicant--and by the Respondent, on the other hand, who alleges that the books were written by a Dutch subject by the name of Fazl and that, such rights of authorship as were possessed by him were transferred to the Respondent. That is the only issue raised by the affidavits. But Mr. Pugh now argues that the onus is on the Petitioner to show that Omar at the time be published the works in question, he being admittedly a citizen of a foreign country, was actually personally present in British territory so as to acquire any right to the copyright. The names of both parties appear on the copyright register as having been registered in respect of the copyright of those books, the Respondent having the prior registration. The names of both parties appear on the copyright register as having been registered in respect of the copyright of those books, the Respondent having the prior registration. T find it alleged in the petition of the Petitioner, and it is nowhere contradicted by the Respondent, that Omar did, and I think that is the proper construction to be drawn from the affidavits, that he did personally publish the works in Singapur in 1893. That he was the author of them 1 can have no doubt for the original documents have been produced before me and from these it appears on the title page of the books (if genuine) that Omar was the author of each and it is very significant that as regards one of the books that the Respondent should have taken the trouble to paste a piece of paper over the name of the author and to otherwise efface the name. It does not appear on the title book or elsewhere that Fazl alleged he was the author of the book and I have no doubt that, Omar was in fact the author. If there had been any doubt in my mind as to the fact of authorship I should have had no hesitation in ordering a trial of the issue, but I have no such doubt, I do not think it is necessary to order the trial of any such issue. The only point that remains is this : is the present applicant a person aggrieved within the meaning of the section. He is I think a person so aggrieved. His name has been registered as the owner of the copyright of which he is the assignee and I think a prima facie case has been made out on the affidavits before me such as to enable me to exercise jurisdiction as regards this matter. He is a person who has a prima facie right to have the name of the Respondent expunged from the Register. I, therefore, make the rule absolute and the Petitioner is to have the costs of the rule.