Judgment :- 1. The plaintiff whose suit for damages for infringement of copy right and other incidental reliefs was dismissed by the lower court is the appellant. A Malayalam cinematograph film by name "Collector Malathy" (hereinafter referred to as the film) was released on 14-9-1967 in various centres in Kerala. The first defendant wrote the screen play and dialogue, the second defendant produced the film and it was distributed in Kerala by the third defendant. The plaintiff alleged that this film is a bare adaptation of the central theme, plot and sub-plots of a Malayalam Drama by name "Sarala Vijayam" written by him in 1948, published in 1952 and distributed through leading bookstalls. Therefore the plaintiff alleges that the defendants have infringed his copy right in the drama. All the defendants resist the suit, but the main contesting defendant is the first defendant. Among other contentions his two main contentions were that the suit is barred by limitation and that there is no infringement of the plaintiff's copyright as alleged by the plaintiff. The plot of the story was supplied by the second defendant and the first defendant wrote the screen-play and the dialogue for the film. The script so prepared is the original work of the first defendant and in writing it he has not re-produced any portion of the drama written by the plaintiff. The theme including the idea and the arrangement of the incidents and the dialogue and working out of the story in the film has nothing to do with the drama nor is it an adaptation or re-production of it Even if there was some casual connection or similarity in the plots, incident, etc., between the two works that is insufficient to constitute an infringement as alleged in the plaint. The trial court after an elaborate trial and accepting the two contentions raised by the defendants dismissed the suit. This is challenged in this appeal. 2. The first point argued by the plaintiff's counsel is that the lower court was wrong in holding that the suit is barred by limitation. To understand this question of limitation some dates have to be borne in mind. The plaintiff himself admits that the film was released on 14-9-1967. The suit was filed on 15-9-1970 in the Munsiff's Court, Kottayam. The first point argued by the plaintiff's counsel is that the lower court was wrong in holding that the suit is barred by limitation. To understand this question of limitation some dates have to be borne in mind. The plaintiff himself admits that the film was released on 14-9-1967. The suit was filed on 15-9-1970 in the Munsiff's Court, Kottayam. In the plaint itself it was stated that the last day of limitation is 14-9-1970 and that being a holiday it is filed on the next day. On 7111970 the Munsiff's Court ordered a return of the plaint for presentation to the proper court. The proper court for a suit for infringement of copy right is the District Court as provided in S.62 of the Copy Right Act (Act 4 of 1957). On the back of the plaint returned there is a direction which reads as follows: "Time to represent 15 days. Court fee paid will be given credit to". The suit was re-presented on 16-11-1970. The plaintiff has invoked S.14 of the Limitation Act to exclude the period during which the suit was pending in the Munsiff's Court. According to the lower court S.14 has no application here and even if that provision is available the plaintiff has not made out that he prosecuted the suit in a wrong court bona fide. The lower court also held that there is no justification for excluding the period from 7111970 to 16-11-1970 in reckoning the period of limitation. How far this view of the lower court is correct may be looked into. 3. Under the Limitation Act there are provisions for computation of the period of limitation and provisions providing when a suit may be instituted under certain contingencies. The latter head is covered by S.4 to 11 and S.12 to 23 come under the former head. S.4 provides that where the prescribed period of suit, appeal or application expires on a day when the court is closed, such proceeding may be preferred or made on the date the court re-opens. This is not a case of exclusion of the period of limitation. On a holiday the court will not be open and it is not possible for the plaintiff to file the suit. To meet such a contingency S.4 is enacted. S.5 empowers the court to excuse the delay in filing certain proceedings other than suits. This is not a case of exclusion of the period of limitation. On a holiday the court will not be open and it is not possible for the plaintiff to file the suit. To meet such a contingency S.4 is enacted. S.5 empowers the court to excuse the delay in filing certain proceedings other than suits. S.6 provides for the mode in which the prescribed period has to be reckoned, if the person entitled to sue is under a legal disability. S.7 provides for a case of plurality of persons entitled to relief and one or more than one among them is or are under a disability referred to in S.6. S.8 and 9 also relate to cases where persons entitled to sue are under any disability. S.10 and 11 relate to suits against express trustees and suits on contracts entered into outside the territory to which the Limitation Act applies. On a perusal of the above sections it can be seen that they do not provide for exclusion of any time. Where a person entitled to sue is under a disability either on account of the fact that the court is closed or he is under any legal disability like minority or insanity, under these sections a right is conferred on him to sue after the disability ceases. That being so the 'court' in S.4 has to be understood to mean the proper court in which the proceedings have to be taken. It follows that if the period prescribed has expired on a holiday thereafter the person entitled to sue has to be very careful to see that he files the suit in a proper court. If the proceeding is initiated in a wrong court after the expiry of the period of limitation S.4 is not available. S.4 and 14 provide for different situations and they cannot be read together to exclude any period of limitation. It is in this manner that the expression "court" in S.4 is understood by the Privy Council in Macbul Ahmad v. Onkar Pratap (AIR 1953 Privy Council 85). Referring to S.4, their Lordships have expressed thus at page 88: "What it provides is that, where the period of limitation prescribed expires on a day when the Court is closed, the application may be made on the day when the Court reopens. Referring to S.4, their Lordships have expressed thus at page 88: "What it provides is that, where the period of limitation prescribed expires on a day when the Court is closed, the application may be made on the day when the Court reopens. In their Lordships' view that means the proper Court in which the application ought to have been made and, on that view of it, it is impossible to say that this application was made to the proper Court on the day on which that Court reopened". That this is the way the expression 'court' in S.4 has to be understood has been stated by the Supreme Court in Amar Chand v. Union of India (AIR. 1973 SC. 313). The decision of the Privy Council referred to above is here followed. Therefore there is no scope for exclusion of any period of limitation under S.4 of the Act in presenting the suit in the Kottayam Munsiff's Court. 4. The above conclusion is enough to hold that the suit was dismissed rightly by the lower court on the ground of limitation. But since the appellants counsel raised a further point that the period during which the suit was pending in the wrong court should be excluded, I will consider how far that is sustainable. The suit is for damages for infringement of copy right and S.62 of the Copy right Act provides that for all suits in respect of copy right, the District Court alone is the competent court. A failure to look into that provision when instituting the suit cannot be said to be a bona fide error or a mistake. Hence the period during which the suit was pending before the Munsiff's Court cannot be excluded under S.14 of the Limitation Act to reckon any period of limitation for the suit. 5. Even assuming that the period during which the suit was pending in the Munsiff's Court is excluded the plaintiff will not be in time in filing the suit on 16-11-1970 in the District Court. The suit was returned for presentation to the proper court on 7-11-1970. Exclusion, if any, under S.14 stops with that date. Any period of grace granted for getting credit of the court-fee already paid will not be a period of limitation provided for in the Limitation Act. The suit was returned for presentation to the proper court on 7-11-1970. Exclusion, if any, under S.14 stops with that date. Any period of grace granted for getting credit of the court-fee already paid will not be a period of limitation provided for in the Limitation Act. The practice of granting the plaintiff time to present the plaint in the proper court to get credit of the court-fee paid on the plaint filed in wrong court, is not based by any statutory provision and that period is not a period during which the suit can be said to be pending in the wrong court. The pendency in the wrong court has stopped with the return of the suit for presentation in the proper court and that being so the period from 7-11-1970 to 16-11-1970 does not come under S.14 of the Limitation Act. I am supported in this conclusion by the decision of Vaidialingom, J. in Parameswara Kurup v. Vasudeva Kurup (1964 KLT.145). The basis for the decision is stated to be that the wrong court, and for that matter any court, has no jurisdiction to extend the period of limitation prescribed for filing a suit. For all these grounds I hold that the suit was rightly dismissed by the lower court on the ground of limitation. 6. In fairness to the counsel for the appellant it is also necessary to consider the points raised on the merits of the case. There is no case for the plaintiff that his drama has been word by word or substantially reproduced in the screen play. What he contends is that in the film there is an indirect infringement, namely, that the plot, character, their conduct and reaction in certain situations are similar to the plot, the characters and situations in his drama. In this connection it has to, be remembered that S.14 of the Copyright Act has defined what a copyright is. S.14(1)(a) is as follows:- "14. Meaning of copyright. In this connection it has to, be remembered that S.14 of the Copyright Act has defined what a copyright is. S.14(1)(a) is as follows:- "14. Meaning of copyright. (1) For the purpose of this Act "copyright" means the exclusive right, virtue of, and subject to the provisions of this Act (a) in the case of a literary, dramatic or musical work, to do and authorise the doing of any of the following acts, namely: (i) to reproduce the work in any material form; (ii) to publish the work; (iii) to perform the work in public; (iv) to produce, reproduce, perform or publish any translation of the work' (v) to make any cinematograph film or a record in respect of the work; (vi)' to communicate the work by radio diffusion or to communicate to the public by a loud speaker or any other similar instrument the radio-diffusion of the work; (vii) to make any adaptation of the work; (viii) to do in relation to a translation or an adaptation of the work any of the acts specified in relation to the work in clauses (i) to (vi);". S. 51 of the Copyright Act provides that a copyright of a work shall be deemed to be infringed when any person does anything the exclusive right to do which is by the Act conferred upon the "owner of the copyright. Exclusive right preferred to therein is what is stated above in clauses (i) to (viii) of S.14(1)(a). What is protected is not the original thought or idea, but the original expression of thought or information in some concrete from. It is an infringement only if the defendant has made an unlawful use of the form in which the thought or information'is expressed. He must be shown to have made a substantial use of this form and he is not liable if he has taken from the work the essential idea however original, and expressed the idea in his own form or used the idea for his own purposes-see Copinget on Copyright 10th Edition-paragraph 406. He must be shown to have made a substantial use of this form and he is not liable if he has taken from the work the essential idea however original, and expressed the idea in his own form or used the idea for his own purposes-see Copinget on Copyright 10th Edition-paragraph 406. Again the learned author has expressed himself more clearly in Para.408: "in any case of infringement the plaintiff has to establish not only that the work in respect of which complaint is made in fact so nearly resembles his, as to be capable of being an infringement, but also that it has in fact been produced by the use of those features of his work which by reason of the knowledge, skill and labour employed in their production constitute it an original copyright work". The law has been stated thus recently by the Supreme Court in R. G. Anand v. Delux Films ((1978) 4 Supreme Court Cases 118). In Para.45 and 46 Fazal Ali, J. who wrote the leading judgment, has stated the law thus: "Thus, the position appears to be that an idea, principle, theme, or subject matter or historical or legendary facts being common property cannot be the subject matter of copyright of a particular person. It is always open to any person to choose an idea as a subject matter and develop it in his own manner and give expression to the idea by treating it differently from others. Where two writers write on the same subject similarities are bound to occur because the central idea of both are the same but the similarities or coinci-deness by themselves cannot lead to an irresistible inference of plagiarism or piracy ......... Thus, the fundamental fact which has to be determined where a charge of violation of the copyright is made by the plaintiff against the defendant is to determine whether or not the defendant not only adopted the idea of the copyrighted work but has also adopted the manner, arrangement, situation to situation, scene to scene with minor changes or super additions or embellishment here and there. Indeed, if on a perusal of the copyrighted work the defendant's work appears to be a transparent rephrasing or a copy of a substantial and material part of the original, the charge of plagiarism must stand proved. Indeed, if on a perusal of the copyrighted work the defendant's work appears to be a transparent rephrasing or a copy of a substantial and material part of the original, the charge of plagiarism must stand proved. Care however must be taken to see whether the defendant has merely disguised piracy or has actually reproduced the original in a different form, different tone, different tenor so as to infuse a new life into the idea of the copyrighted work adapted by him. In the latter case there is no violation of the copyright. 46. Thus, on a careful consideration and elucidation of the various authorities and the case law on the subject discussed above, the following propositions emerge: 1. There can be no copyright in an idea, subject matter, themes, plots or historical or legendary facts and violation of the copyright in such cases is confined to the form, manner and arrangement and expression of the idea by the author of the copyright work. 2. Where the same idea is being developed in a different manner, it is manifest that the source being common, similarities are bound to occur. In such a case the courts should determine whether or not the similarities are on fundamental or substantial aspects of the mode of expression adopted in the copyrighted work. If the defendant's work is nothing but a literal imitation of the copyrighted work with some variations here and there it would amount to violation of the copyright. In other words, in order to be actionable the copy must be a substantial and material one which at once leads to the conclusion that the defendant is guilty of an act of piracy. 3. One of the surest and the safest test to determine whether or not there has been a violation of copyright is to see if the reader, spectator or the viewer after haying read or seen both the works is clearly of the opinion and gets an unmistakable impression that the subsequent work appears to be a copy of the original. 4. Where the theme is the same but is presented and treated differently so that the subsequent work becomes a completely new work, no question of violation of copy right arises. 5. 4. Where the theme is the same but is presented and treated differently so that the subsequent work becomes a completely new work, no question of violation of copy right arises. 5. Where however apart from the similarities appearing in the two works there are also material and broad dissimilarities which negative the intention to copy the original and the coincidences appearing in the two works are clearly incidental no infringement of the copyright comes into existence. 6. As a violation of copyright amounts to an act of piracy it must be proved by clear and cogent evidence after applying the various tests laid down by the case-law discussed above. 7. Where however the question is of the violation of copyright of stage play by a film producer or a director the task of the plaintiff becomes more difficult to prove piracy. It is manifest that unlike a stage play a film has a much broader prospective, wider field and a bigger background where the defendants can by introducing a variety of incidents give a colour and complexion different from the manner in which the copyrighted work has expressed the idea. Even so, if the viewer after seeing the film gets a totality of impression that the film is by and large a copy of the original play, violation of the copyright may be said to be proved. R. S. Pathak J. added a rider also thus in Para.66: "In another, and perhaps a clearer case, it may be necessary for this court to interfere and remove the impression which may have gained ground that the copyright belonging to an author can be readily infringed by making immaterial changes, introducing unsubstantial differences and enlarging the scope of the original theme so that a veil of apparent dissimilarity is thrown around the work now produced. The court will look strictly at not only blatant examples of copying but also at reprehensible attempts at colourable imitation." In the light of these the question for consideration is whether the plaintiff has made out a case of infringement. The lower court has in Para.11 and 12 given an outline of the stories in the drama and the film. The appellant's counsel submitted that the outline of the drama and the film given by the learned judge is correct. So that is reproduced hereunder: 1 1. The lower court has in Para.11 and 12 given an outline of the stories in the drama and the film. The appellant's counsel submitted that the outline of the drama and the film given by the learned judge is correct. So that is reproduced hereunder: 1 1. Before considering the relevant evidence and determining whether the plaintiff's copyright has been infringed, it is necessary to outline the stories in the drama and the film. 12. THE DRAMA: Somanathan is the proprietor or principal partner of a concern called Investment Corporation. Gopala Menon is a partner in the Corporation and had given his properties to secure loans for the concern. Somanathan has a son by name Ravi (described also as Ravindranathan once or twice in the drama) and a daughter by name Lathika. Gopala Menon is also father of a son and daughter Vijayan and Nirmala. While at College as students Vijayan and a girl by name Sarala fall in love. By the time they leave college, Vijayan promises to marry Sarala, but wants her to wait till Nirmala is married. Vijayan returns home (Anand bhavanam at Ravipuram) to find his father breathing his last. Sarala goes to Jagalpuram where her uncle Surendran is employed as an Inspector of Police. The factory of Somanathan is situated at Jagalpuram and when Sarala reaches there, Ravi is the Managing Director of the Corporation. Ravi has progressive ideas and he attempts to reform the affairs of the Corporation by slashing the salary of high officers, raising the wages of workers and giving them higher bonus. These reforms are not however relished by Somanathan who is under the influence of the Corporation Manager, Vikraman, a wicked character. By himself and through his wife Mallika, Vikraman has tremendous influence over Somanathan who is fond of women and liquor. By exploiting these weaknesses and by establishing a liaison between Mallika and Somanathan, Vikraman commits all sorts of fraudulent deeds and enriches himself. Ravi decides that if the Corporation is to thrive and Somanathan is to be saved from the mire, Vikraman has to be relieved from the Corporation. In the meantime strikes and labour disputes face the Corporation and these are settled with the help of Surendran and Sarala who is residing with him. Ravi decides that if the Corporation is to thrive and Somanathan is to be saved from the mire, Vikraman has to be relieved from the Corporation. In the meantime strikes and labour disputes face the Corporation and these are settled with the help of Surendran and Sarala who is residing with him. During this period Sarala gets acquainted with Ravi and she takes the opportunity to tell him about Vijayan and Nirmala and his interest in Nirmala. By this time Surendran is transferred to Ravipuram and Sarala accompanies him to that place. At Ravipuram Sarala meets Vijayan and discloses that she had told Ravi about Nirmala and that he has become interested in her. At Sarala's instance, Ravi comes to Ravipuram and meets Nirmala and Vijayan. Nirmala and Ravi take to each other and Vijayan becomes friendly with Ravi. Thereafter Vijayan goes off in search of a job and after an unsuccessful wandering comes to Jagalpuram and sees Ravi. By this time Ravi detects a shortage in the cash balance of the Corporation and taking that opportunity he dismisses Vikraman. Somanathan resents this dismissal although he acquiesces in it. By making it appear that Vijayan hails from Madras, and is familiar with business administration, Ravi gets him appointed as Manager in place of Vikraman. Vijayan takes the job and starts residing at Jagalpuram. Somanathan who had disliked the acts of Ravi, removes him from the Managing Directorship and appoints Lathika in his place, as soon as she returns from college after completing her education. Unknown to Vijayan, Lathika his superior, starts loving him. Ravi and Vijayan leave for Madras on a business trip and on the way visit Vijayan's house at Ravipuram, where Ravi proposes to Nirmala. She is willing but wants the approval of Vijayan. Ravi and Vijayan then go to Madras. Now despite his ceasing to be the Manager, Vikraman maintains his association with Somanathan and at his instance an assignment is taken in Ravi's name of a decree obtained by a stranger on a loan secured by Gopala Menon's property. In execution of the decree the residential house of Vijayan and Nirmala is taken possession and Vikraman and Mallika start residence there. AH this is manipulated without Ravi's knowledge. Thinking that Vijayan is at Jagalpuram Nirmala sends him a telegram. Vijayan had not returned and the telegram reaches Lathika. In execution of the decree the residential house of Vijayan and Nirmala is taken possession and Vikraman and Mallika start residence there. AH this is manipulated without Ravi's knowledge. Thinking that Vijayan is at Jagalpuram Nirmala sends him a telegram. Vijayan had not returned and the telegram reaches Lathika. Lathika sends a reply purporting to be from Vijayan asking Nirmala to come to Jagalpuram. She also informs Vijayan to return from Madras. Both Vijayan and Nirmala reach Jagalpuram at about same time. Before their arrival, Lathika has occasion to read a letter from Sarala to Vijayan enclosing her photo. From this, she comes to know that Vijayan is already in love with Sarala. After Vijayan's return he and Nirmala start their residence at Jagalpuram. This gives an opportunity for Lathika to meet Nirmala from whom she gets confirmation about the love between Vijayan and Sarala. Lathika and Nirmala also arrange with Viswan (a servant of Vijayan and Nirmala) to secure some of the letters sent by Vijayan to Sarala. In the meanwhile Ravi comes to Ravipuram to see Nirmala and finds her house occupied by Vikraman and Mallika. Unnoticed by him, Somanathan is also in that house: Ravi learns from Viswan about the delivery of the house and about Nirmala's departure for Jagalpuram. Ravi goes back to Madras and from there writes to Somanathan to send him some money through Vijayan (presumably to redeem the property which has been delivered over.) Somanathan gets the letter and he decides to send the money through Lathika. Before her departure Lathika gives Vijayan, a photo to get it framed saying that it is the photo of a former partner of the Corporation. It is the photo of Gopala Menon. From Vijayan's reactions at the sight of the photo Lathika learns about his identity. About this time, Vikraman tells Somanathan that Vijayan is after Lathika and that he might find out the fraud committed against his father. The idea that Vijayan is after Lathika does not please Somanathan. Lathika goes to Madras with the money and sees Ravi. She finds that Ravi is in love with Nirmala and that he wants to recover the property from Vikraman. She tells him that by the records it was he (Ravi) who had taken delivery of the property and that she had examined records of the case. Lathika goes to Madras with the money and sees Ravi. She finds that Ravi is in love with Nirmala and that he wants to recover the property from Vikraman. She tells him that by the records it was he (Ravi) who had taken delivery of the property and that she had examined records of the case. While they are thus talking, they get a letter from Vijayan saying that he had been accused of misappropriating Rs. 10,000/- out of the Corporal ion funds, that himself and Nirmala are in danger of being sent to jail, that they are really innocent and that some one else had fraudulently and maliciously removed the money. The letter also requests them to come back to Jagalpuram. Learning about this situation Sarala comes to Jagalpuram, meets the Inspector (not her uncle) and gathers details of the case. Meanwhile Ravi and Lathika come to Jagalpuram incognito and know about the facts of the case. At the Jagalpuram Railway Station they meet Vikraman under suspicious circumstances. They dog him to Ravipuram and from some talk which they over hear they find out that it was he who had removed the money. They pass this information to Surendran who is the Inspector there. Surendran searches Vikraman's residence and recovers the currency notes with the Corporation seal. It is also disclosed that by influencing Somanathan, a fraudulent sale deed has been executed for Vijayan's house in favour of Mallika by forging Ravi's signature. Vikraman and Mallika are arrested and brought to Jagalpuram Police Station where Vijayan and Nirmala are detained. Somanathan is also brought to the station. Under Police torture Vikraman confesses that he opened the Corporation safe with a duplicate key and removed the money to spite Vijayan and that he also forged Ravi's signature in the sale deed for the house. On knowing about the true facts, Somanathan is full of regret and he offers to give the property and their share of the Company's profits to Vijayan and Nirmala. Before being brought to the station Somanathan receives an anonymous letter with a draft for Rs. 10,000/- to cover the deficiency of money from the company. That letter also accuses Somanathan for the arrest of Vijayan. It also comes out subsequently that the letter and draft have been sent by Ravi. With the truth disclosed Vijayan and Nirmala are released. Before being brought to the station Somanathan receives an anonymous letter with a draft for Rs. 10,000/- to cover the deficiency of money from the company. That letter also accuses Somanathan for the arrest of Vijayan. It also comes out subsequently that the letter and draft have been sent by Ravi. With the truth disclosed Vijayan and Nirmala are released. In scene No.17 Sarala, Vijayan, Nirmala, Ravi and Lathika are in conversation, the last two still incognito. During the conversation Sarala suggests that the two persons should be adequately recompensed as it was they who had unearthed the truth. Seizing this opportunity Lathika gets a promise (really an Oath) from Vijayan, Nirmala and Sarala that what they demand would be given. Lathika then takes Vijayan aside and after disclosing her identity asks him to marry her. Sarala follows them. Vijayan finds it hard to accept Lathika's request because of his love for Sarala: Lathika makes a fervent appeal that he must at least announce that he loves her, for consolation. She has a packet of poison in her hand and after snatching is away, Vijayan tries to swallow it, saying that he has no right to live as he cannot keep his promise. Lathika kneels before Vijayan and implores him not to die and that she would be happy to see him alive. Sarala who is a silent witness to this scene is touched by Lathika's intense love for Vijayan and the latter's pathetic plight. She makes the dramatic announcement that she had loved Vijayan only as a sister and tells him that it would be inhuman to reject Lathika and that as for herself she has decided to dedicate her life to the service of the poor. In the meanwhile Ravi asks for Nirmala's hand, after disclosing his own identity and it is accepted. In the final scene (Scene 18) the two marriages between Vijayan and Lathika and that between Ravi and Nirmala take place in Sarala's Asramam, under her auspices. Somanathan makes a handsome contribution to the Asramam and promises more. The drama ends with all shouting praise for Sarala. FILM. Bhanuvikama Varma (hereinafter referred to as the Thampuran) is the head of an ancient Kovilagam which had seen prosperous and powerful times but had now fallen on evil days. His only child is Indumathi, an unsophisticated girl. Somanathan makes a handsome contribution to the Asramam and promises more. The drama ends with all shouting praise for Sarala. FILM. Bhanuvikama Varma (hereinafter referred to as the Thampuran) is the head of an ancient Kovilagam which had seen prosperous and powerful times but had now fallen on evil days. His only child is Indumathi, an unsophisticated girl. His sister Subadra Thampuratty (called hereunder merely as Thampuratty) became a widow when her only child Ravi Varma was a baby. They were brought to the Kovilagam by the Thampuran and since then they were living under his care. Ravi Varma grew up and was a student in the B. A. degree class. A pulaya girl by name Malathi who is the daughter of Chathan, a school master in the village was also a student in the same College. She and Ravi Varma were childhood friends and by the time they reached College, the friendship had ripened into love. At the end of their final College year, they returned to their village promising to meet there. They secretly used to meet in the village when Ravi Varma assured her that he would marry her. Thampuran who had decided that Ravi Varma should marry Indumathi now sets about making preparations for the marriage. He had no funds and so decided to raise money by leasing the temple compound to one Appu Kunju. He asks Wariyar, an employee of the Kovilagam to tell Appu Kunju and prepare the deed. While these arrangements were in progress, Ravi Varma meets Malathi one night and tells her that his marriage has been fixed up but assures her that if he marries it would be only her. Chathan who overhears this talk, chastises Malathi after Ravi Varma had left, pointing out the impassable gulf between them and asks her not to meet Ravi Varma. In the Kovilagam Ravi Varma tells his mother that he would not marry Indumathy. Later he meets Chathan and tells him that he is prepared to marry Malathi but Chathan tells him that he would not allow it, emphasising the gap between the Palace and the but and the difference between their social status. He also forbids him from visiting his house. The Thampuratty comes to know about this liaison from Variar who had over heard the talk between Ravi Varma and Chathan. He also forbids him from visiting his house. The Thampuratty comes to know about this liaison from Variar who had over heard the talk between Ravi Varma and Chathan. She pleads with Ravi Varma not to carry his opposition to the Thampuran and reminds him that all arrangements had been made and that marriage itself had been decided upon while he and Indumathy were children. Later one night the Thampuratty pays a visit to Malathi and tells her that whatever might have happened at College, must be forgotten, that despite its bad days the Kovilagam is a Kovilagam and that she (the Thampuratty) and the Kovilagom would not survive Ravi Varma's marriage with Malathi. She tells Malathi that this appeal, cruel as it is, comes from a mother and that she should forget Ravi Varma. The next morning Ravi Varma found that Malathi and Chadian had left for her uncle's house. Ravi Varma goes there, and meets Malathi but finds her an entirely different girl. She tells him bluntly that except that they had studied together in College and might, have talked together there was nothing between them and that he should go away and not come back again. She even tells him that her own marriage with her uncle's son has been fixed and she would abide by what her relations decide, Ravi Varma returns to the Kovilagam and prepares to leave the place. The Thampuratty reminds him what the Thampuran had done for them and that his whole attitude was the height of ingratitude. Ravi Varma yields to these importunate pleas and agrees to marry Indumathy for the sake of his mother and uncle and family honour. The marriage then duly takes place. However even after the marriage Ravi Varma continues to be cool and indifferent towards Indumathy despite her love and attentions. He even tells her of his relationship with Malathi and that his whole body and mind belong to her. The Thampuratty had dreamt of a happy union between her son and niece and finding it all shattered becomes bedridden. Ravi Varma had applied for a job and in the meanwhile he got an order appointing him as a lower division clerk in the Collectorate. Despite his initial opposition to a member of his family going in for employment the Thampuran ultimately agrees to Ravi Varma taking the job. Ravi Varma had applied for a job and in the meanwhile he got an order appointing him as a lower division clerk in the Collectorate. Despite his initial opposition to a member of his family going in for employment the Thampuran ultimately agrees to Ravi Varma taking the job. Ravi Varma joined duty but still he was not destined to enjoy peace of mind. Malathi had in the meanwhile become an I.A.S. Officer and had been posted Collector. One day when he took his office files to the Collector's room, he was stunned to find Malathi sitting in the Collector's seat. Malathi looks up and is equally surprised to see Ravi Varma. Later she calls him to her quarters and apologizes for her curt behaviour at the office. In the meanwhile Appukunju attempts to cut a tree from the courtyard of the temple despite Thampuran's objection. Finding no other way to prevent Appukunju's act, Thampuran goes to the Collector with a petition but she tells him that she is powerless and he has to seek relief in the Munsiff's Court. Thampuran goes out of the Collectorate weeping. Malathi however pays off the amount due to Appukunju and the latter tells the Thampuran he is surrendering the property. By this time, Ravi Varma resigns his job. His relationship with Indumathi is as distant and cool as before. The Thampuratty decides to seek Malathi's help to normalise his relationship with Indumathi and sends word to her through Wariyar that she would like to see her. Malathi agrees and comes to the Kovilagam. The Thampuran receives her with respect and escorts her to the room where Thampuratty is lying. Through her sobs the Thampuratty recalls the earlier help she had sought from Malathi and describes to her the sad and tearful plight of Indumathi, adding that she alone can straighten up the whole thing by talking to Ravi Varma who would respect only her words. As she did before, Malathi yields to the Thampuratti's wishes and goes to Ravi Varma who is in another room and explains to him the pathetic plight of the unloved Indumathy, reminds him of his duty as a husband and pleads with him to recognise Indumathi as his wife. Ravi Varma ultimately agrees to try to do so from that day. Ravi Varma ultimately agrees to try to do so from that day. With an exclamation of triumph Malathi says that she has succeded and that she would like to see him and Indumathi talk happily once. She then dresses Indumathi as a bride and sends her into Ravi Varma's room. Malathi and the members of the Kovilagam who were waiting to see Indumathi return happily are shocked by her shriek from the room. Thampuran and Malathi run into the room and find Ravi Varma sitting dead in his chair. There was a writing by Ravi Varma left which said that he could not visualise any one except Malathi as his wife. With tears flowing through her cheeks she leaves the Kovilagam." In Para.13 and 14 the learned judge has discussed the list of similarities that are said to exist in the drama and in the film. As many as 30 situations were mentioned in the list and the learned judge has considered each one of them and come to the conclusion that there is no identity or similarity in these between the drama and the film. The learned judge has also in Para.14 pointed out that there is no identity or comparison between the important characters mentioned in the drama and the film and said that there is no infringement. I have gone through over again each one of these situations and characters alleged to be similar in the drama and in the film and I agree with the learned judge that no case of infringement has been made out. What is required to make out a case of infringement is that on reading the screen play and dialogue one must get an impression that this is the reproduction of the drama. Such is not the case here. So I hold that the plaintiff has failed on the merits also. In the result I dismiss the appeal with costs.