JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Plaint filed under Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules, praying for the following judgment and decree:- (a) a declaration that the plaintiff is the sole owner of the copyright in the works of Keeran more fully described in the Schedule hereunder; (b) The defendants be directed to surrender to the plaintiff on oath all master tapes, containing the original recording of the speeches, lectures and discourses and works of Late Keeran, or any other records, Audio Cassettes, Compact Discs or any other media whether magnetic or otherwise whether original or copies containing a record of the speeches, lectures and discourses and works of Late Keeran more fully described in the schedule hereunder; (c) A permanent injunction restraining the respondents, their men, agents, assigns, representatives, servants or anyone claiming through them from using, copying, reproducing and selling, distributing or broadcasting through radio, over the internet or other media or in any manner whatsoever exploiting or dealing with the records, Audio Cassettes, Compact Discs or any other storage media whether magnetic, laser or otherwise containing the speeches, lectures and works of late Keeran more fully described in the schedule hereunder until disposal of this suit. (d) For a preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiff directing the defendants to render an account of the profits made by them by exploiting or dealing with the recorded works of late Keeran more fully described in the schedule hereunder from 1990 till the date of rendition of the accounts and a final decree be passed in favour of the plaintiffs for the amount of profits found to have been made by the defendants after they render accounts; (e) to pay the cost of this suit.) 1. The plaintiff, wife of a famous Religious preacher and historian Pulavar Keeran seeks a declaration that she is the owner of the Copyright in the works described in the schedule and consequential injunctive reliefs directing the defendants to surrender to the plaintiff all master tapes containing the original recording of the speeches, lectures and discourses of Late Pulavar Keeran, or any other records, Audio Cassettes, Compact Discs or any other media containing a record of the speeches, lectures and discourses of late Pulavar Keeran, restrain the respondents, from reproducing, selling, distributing or broadcasting through radio, internet or any other media or in any manner exploiting the literary works of Pulavar Keeran, a preliminary decree for accounting and for costs. 1.1. The case of the plaintiff is that her late husband Pulavar Keeran, was a famous spiritual orator. He was born in Mayiladuthurai in 1935 and he was christened as Vaidyanathaswamy, by his parents. Even from his childhood, he showed interest in Tamil language, Tamil literature and various Hindu Epics. He studied extensively and started giving lectures and literary demonstrations of those epics. Apart from spirituality, he also added scientific substantiation to the events in the epics which made his speeches more interesting and he attracted huge crowds. Impressed by his interpretation and his style of presentation Thiru Arumugha Navalar, a great spiritualist blessed him and gave him the psuedo name of Keeran, thereafter he came to be known as “Pulavar Keeran”. His spiritual carrier spreads over 31 years, during which time he attended several spiritual conferences and gave lectures on various topics. He had a large following and had won several awards and titles. His lectures varied from the epics Ramayana and Mahabaratha, to the works of Subramania Bharathiyar. 1.2. He was also good at drawing analogy from various other literatures around the world. He had travelled to various South Asian Nations, apart from England, United States and Canada. He was sponsored as the representative of the Government of Tamil Nadu for the Conference on Ramayana held in Toronto, Canada in 1987. The Government of Sri Lanka and other literary organisations in India and abroad had conferred several awards on Pulavar Keeran. He had also published certain books during his lifetime. He was sponsored as the representative of the Government of Tamil Nadu for the Conference on Ramayana held in Toronto, Canada in 1987. The Government of Sri Lanka and other literary organisations in India and abroad had conferred several awards on Pulavar Keeran. He had also published certain books during his lifetime. With a view to propagate Hinduism and to educate people spiritually, Pulavar Keeran embarked upon the idea of recording his concerts and publishing them in the form of cassettes so that they could be sold and people can listen to them in the comfort of their homes. 1.3. In 1987 Pulavar Keeran, had met the first defendant, who was running a small audio cassette shop in the name and style of Vani Recording Co., from his residence at No.12, Kamaraj Avenue, 2nd Street, Adayar, Chennai 600 020, and discussed recording of his programmes in Audio cassettes. At that stage, there were very few literary speakers, who had ventured upon recording their speeches and selling them as Audio cassettes. Therefore, Pulavar Keeran, himself was unsure as to the magnitude of the work or the demand for such works among the general public. He therefore decided to have a test run by recording discourses on various topics and offering them for sale wherever he went for discourses. He also agreed to let the defendant market the cassettes and set of the monies realised for the expenses involved in making the recordings. 1.4. The first defendant was also required to furnish a true copy of the accounts. The arrangement was only an interim arrangement and the same was not formalised. Pulavar Keeran, went on to record nearly 12 of his works in 38 cassettes. The works that are recorded are specified in the schedule to the plaint. During the course of the recording itself, Pulavar Keeran himself carried the cassettes to the venues where he gave physical discourses and offered them for sale to the people who attended the same. The defendant also sold certain cassettes through the dealers. There was an agreement between Pulavar Keeran and the defendant that depending on the market and the number of copies that are sold they could work out and formalise an arrangement which could be to the benefit of both. 1.5. The defendant also sold certain cassettes through the dealers. There was an agreement between Pulavar Keeran and the defendant that depending on the market and the number of copies that are sold they could work out and formalise an arrangement which could be to the benefit of both. 1.5. It is also the specific case of the plaintiff that Late Pulavar Keeran did not permit any further reproduction, copying or release of the same work as he has desired that such further release were to be done only after reaching a formal agreement fixing the profit sharing ratio and other monetary aspects. Pulavar Keeran, did not part with the copy right and he was not paid anything by the defendant for the lectures that were recorded. Between 1987 and 1990, late Pulavar Keeran, completed recording 12 of his works in 38 cassettes and during the period, the parties were also selling some of the works. Unfortunately, Pulavar Keeran, could not complete the recording of all his works since he suffered a brain hemorrhage and eventually died on 22.11.1990. He left behind a large family consisting of the plaintiff and his six children. Four of the children were still students when Pulavar Keeran passed away. Therefore, the plaintiff was engaged in looking after the children and their education. Only two of the children were married and the others were still studying. 1.6. The first defendant agreed to keep the master tapes in his possession in order to secure the safety and maintenance. He had assured the plaintiff that he would return the same whenever she sought for them. The first defendant also assured the plaintiff that he would make the tapes available for commercial exploitation by the plaintiff. On the above assurances, the plaintiff had entrusted the master tapes with the first defendant for safety and maintenance. When the first defendant required the plaintiff to part with the copyright in the works of Pulavar Keeran, the plaintiff refused to do so, since she intended retaining the copyright of the works of her husband. The plaintiff was forced to live outside India for most of the time since most of her children were in United States. Taking advantage of the absence of the plaintiff from India, the first defendant was commercially exploiting the recorded works that were in his possession. 1.7. The plaintiff was forced to live outside India for most of the time since most of her children were in United States. Taking advantage of the absence of the plaintiff from India, the first defendant was commercially exploiting the recorded works that were in his possession. 1.7. Upon coming to know about such illegal exploitation, the daughter of the plaintiff Mrs.Ramamani Keeran, objected to the same and informed the plaintiff of such infringement of the copyright by the first defendant. The plaintiff had then instructed her son Thanigaimani Keeran to meet the first defendant and ensure cessation of the illegality. The daughter and son of the plaintiff met the first defendant at his residence on 20.10.2002 and demanded him to handover the master tapes and to stop infringing the copyright of the plaintiff. The first defendant refused to comply with the demand. Thereafter, the plaintiff’s son caused a notice to be issued on 24.10.2002 calling upon the first defendant to desist from infringing the copyright of the plaintiff and to handover the master tapes. Accounts and compensation were also sought for. 1.8. The first defendant sent a reply on 02.11.2002, though the reply was issued to the lawyer at Chennai, the lawyer at Chennai did not correspond with the plaintiff. The plaintiff returned to India in October 2003 and on making enquiries found that her husband’s works were still being sold in the market by the defendants. She met the lawyer, who had issued the legal notice dated 24.10.2002, only then she came to know that the defendants have in fact issued a reply challenging the plaintiff’s claim. The reply notice dated 02.11.2002 was delivered to the plaintiff by the counsel in 2003 when she met him. In the reply notice the first defendant had claimed that he is the owner of the copyright in the recorded works of Pulavar Keeran, and that he had right to exploit the copyright. He denied the right claimed by the plaintiff. 1.9. Upon further research, the plaintiff came to know that all the 12 works were being sold by the defendants, as if he is the owner of the copyright. The defendants’ assertion that Pulavar Keeran, assigned the copyright to him are false. He denied the right claimed by the plaintiff. 1.9. Upon further research, the plaintiff came to know that all the 12 works were being sold by the defendants, as if he is the owner of the copyright. The defendants’ assertion that Pulavar Keeran, assigned the copyright to him are false. On the above contentions, the plaintiff would claim that she being the owner of the copyright the action of the defendants in selling the cassettes would amount to infringement of the copyright and hence she seeks the reliefs of declaration and injunction stated surpra. 2. The suit is resisted by the defendants contending that the claim of the plaintiff is false. According to the first defendant, he had engaged a Pulavar Keeran, for giving the discourses which were to be recorded by him and commercially exploited. He would claim that he had paid a sum of Rs.2,500/- for every recording to Pulavar Keeran, and only after payment he used to render the discourses which would be recorded. According to the defendants, Pulavar Keeran, was engaged by the first defendant for the purposes of recording and therefore, he as the producer would be the author of the work concerned and he alone had the copyright to the work and not Pulavar Keeran. It was also contended that the delay in filing the suit itself would demonstrate that either Pulavar Keeran, or his family had no right over the works of Pulavar Keeran. It is also claimed that the suit is barred by limitation. 2.1. Pulavar Keeran was allowed to take the cassettes and sell them wherever he goes for discourses. He did so only as a dealer and not as the author of the work. He would have a margin of Rs.25/- for each cassette and he had paid the value of the cassettes to the defendants. It was also claimed that Pulavar Keeran has not accounted for a sum of Rs.65,000/- which was realised by him by sale of the cassettes. When the plaintiff approached the first defendant, the first defendant had brought to her knowledge that Pulavar Keeran owed him a sum of Rs.65,000/- and the plaintiff assured that she has got other works of Pulavar Keeran, recorded in cassettes which would be handed over to the first defendant and he can realise the money by sale of such cassettes. When the plaintiff approached the first defendant, the first defendant had brought to her knowledge that Pulavar Keeran owed him a sum of Rs.65,000/- and the plaintiff assured that she has got other works of Pulavar Keeran, recorded in cassettes which would be handed over to the first defendant and he can realise the money by sale of such cassettes. According to the defendants, this being the arrangement the plaintiff has come up with suit in false allegations. On the above pleadings, the defendants sought for dismissal of the suit. 3. On the above pleadings, this Court had framed the following issues for determination: 1. Whether the plaintiff is the sole owner of the copyright in the works of late Pulavar Keeran; 2. Whether the defendants are entitled to claim assignment within the provisions of the Copyrights Act; 3. Whether the suit claim is barred by limitation; 4. Whether the defendants are liable to render accounts to the plaintiff for any alleged infringement of the copyright; 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any other relief. 4. At trial, it is seen that the son of Pulavar Keeran, was examined as P.W.1 on 15.07.2009 certain documents were marked through him, but there was no cross-examination. However subsequently it is seen that the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 on 15.04.2010 and Exhibits P1 to P8 were marked. The material objects were also marked as MO 1 to MO 10. One P.Ramadass, was examined as P.W.2 and one P.R.Venkatachalam, was examined as P.W.3. The first defendant was examined as D.W.1 and no documents were produced on the side of the defendant. 5. I have heard Mr.J.Sivanandaraaj, learned counsel appearing for M/s.S.Kaushik Ramasamy, for the plaintiff and Mrs.Vasudha Thiagarajan, learned counsel appearing for the defendants. 6. Mr.J.Sivanandaraaj, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff relying upon the definition of the term ‘author’ found in Section 2(d) of the Copyright Act would contend that in relation to a literary or a dramatic work, the original author of the work is the author and the copyright in such work vested in the author. In view of Section 17 of the Copyright Act, the author of the work would be the first owner of the copyright. In view of Section 17 of the Copyright Act, the author of the work would be the first owner of the copyright. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, a combined reading of Section 2(d) and Section 17, would demonstrate that the plaintiff being a legal heir of the author would be entitled to the copyright over the works of Pulavar Keeran and the defendant who is only a person, who recorded the works at the instance of Pulavar Keeran, cannot be termed as a producer so as to enable him to claim copyright as a producer of the work. 7. Pointing out the total absence of evidence in support of the claim of the first defendant that he had engaged Pulavar Keeran, and paid him for the recordings, the learned counsel would contend that the first defendant was only assisting Pulavar Keeran in making the recordings and he had not engaged Pulavar Keeran, to make him a producer, who would be entitled to a copyright over the works. 8. Countering the contention on Limitation, Mr.J.Sivanandaraaj, would submit that the cause of action for infringement would arise with every sale and therefore, it is a continuing cause of action. He would also buttress the submission contending that the cause of action would arise only when the original owner has knowledge of the infringement and since the plaintiff was in United States of America for majority of the period, she had no knowledge of the infringement and therefore, it cannot be said that the suit is barred by limitation. 9. Contending contra, Mrs.Vasudha Thiagarajan, learned counsel appearing for the defendants would submit that the work in question is a sound recording and as far as the sound recording is concerned, the author of the work is the producer. The defendant being the producer of the sound recording is the author of the work and he would therefore be the first owner of the copyright under Section 17 of the Act. Therefore, according to learned counsel, neither Pulavar Keeran, nor his family can claim any right over the audio recordings that were made by the defendants upon payment to Pulavar Keeran. 10. The sum and substance of the contention of the learned counsel is that the first defendant had engaged Pulavar Keeran and had produced the audio recordings and therefore he will be the owner of the copyright. 10. The sum and substance of the contention of the learned counsel is that the first defendant had engaged Pulavar Keeran and had produced the audio recordings and therefore he will be the owner of the copyright. Mrs.Vasudha Thiagarajan, learned counsel would also contend that the suit having been filed in the year 2004 nearly 13 years after the death of Pulavar Keeran, in 1990 is clearly barred by limitation. 11. I have considered the rival submissions. Let me now advert to the issues framed in the suit. Issue No.1: 12. This issue relates to the ownership of the copyright in the works of late Pulavar Keeran. While the plaintiff would contend that she being the wife of Pulavar Keeran, she is entitled to the copyright. The first defendant would submit that he being the producer of the sound recording, he is entitled to the copyright. Section 13 of the Copyright Act, details the works in which a copyright would subsist, they are: (1) Original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works; (2) Cinematographic films; and (3) Sound recording. Sub Section (iii) of Section 13 provides that the Copyright shall not subsist in any sound recording made in respect of a literary, dramatic or musical work, if in making the sound recording, copyright in such work has been infringed. While the plaintiff claims a copyright to the original literary work namely the lectures of her husband, the defendant claims copyright over the sound recording, the defendant claims as a producer of the work. Section 2(d) of the Act, defines the term “Auhtor”. Section 2(d) reads as follows: (d) “author” means, (i) in relation to a literary or dramatic work, the author of the work; (ii) in relation to a musical work, the composer; (iii) in relation to an artistic work other than a photograph, the artist; (iv) in relation to a photograph, the person taking the photograph; (v) in relation to a cinematograph film or sound recording, the producer; and (vi) in relation to any literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which is computer-generated, the person who causes the work to be created; 12.1. As per Section 2(d)(1), an author in relation to a literary or dramatic work is the original author of the work and an author in relation to a sound recording is the producer. As per Section 2(d)(1), an author in relation to a literary or dramatic work is the original author of the work and an author in relation to a sound recording is the producer. The copyright in a work which is published during the lifetime of the author will be valid for 60 years from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the author dies. Pulavar Keeran had died on 22.11.1990. Therefore, the copyright in the works would survive for 60 years from 01.01.1991. The legal heirs of the author would be entitled to the copyright. In order to ascertain the scope of the rights based on the rival claims, it has to be first decided as to who is the author of the work concerned, whether it is Pulavar Keeran, as the author of the original literary work or the first defendant as the producer of the sound recording. Once the above question is answered then the rights will automatically flow under Sections 13 and 17 of the Act. 12.2. Section 17 invests the copyright with the author of the work the provisos to Section 17 spell out the circumstances under which a person other than the original author could become the author of the work. Proviso (a) to Section 17 deals with a literary, dramatic or artistic work made by the author in the course of his employment by the proprietor of a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical under a contract of service or apprenticeship, for the purpose of publication in a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical. In case of such works by the effect of the proviso (a) to Section 17, the proprietor of the magazine or the periodical becomes the first owner of the copyright. Proviso (b) to Section 17 makes the person who for valuable consideration as a photograph taken or a painting or portrait drawn, or an engraving or a cinematography film made the owner of the first copyright in such work. 12.3. Proviso (b) to Section 17 makes the person who for valuable consideration as a photograph taken or a painting or portrait drawn, or an engraving or a cinematography film made the owner of the first copyright in such work. 12.3. Proviso (c), applies to works not covered by Clause (a) and Clause (b), it reads as follows: “In the case of a work made in the course of the author’s employment under a contract of service or apprenticeship, to which clause (a) or clause (b) does not apply, the employer shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright therein.” The effect of proviso (c) is to make a person who employs an author to do any work which does not fall within clauses (a) or (b) for consideration, the owner of the Copyright in such work. Provisos (a) and (b) to Section 17 will not apply to the case on hand, as it is not the case on either of the parties that the recording were made for the purposes of publication in any newspaper or magazine in the course of employment of Pulavar Keeran with such newspaper or magazine. Clause (b) of the proviso to Section 17, will not also apply as it does not relate to a literary work. 12.4. The case on hand will fall squarely within the ambit of proviso (c) to Section 17 of the Act. The effect of proviso (c) to Section 17 of the Act is that the first defendant would be the owner of the Copyright in the works of Pulavar Keeran, only if he is able to show that the work has been done during the course of employment of Pulavar Keeran, under a contract of service or apprenticeship. Though a plea is taken by the first defendant that he had made payments to Pulavar Keeran for each and every recording there is nothing on record to substantiate such a plea. Yet another factor that would buttress the claim of the plaintiff is that Pulavar Keeran was taking the cassettes and selling them wherever he went to give discourses, even though the defendant would claim that such sales were done by Pulavar Keeran as the agent of the defendants, there is nothing on record to substantiate such claim also, except the interested testimony of the defendant as D.W.1. 12.5. 12.5. Once it is conceded that the recordings were made by Pulavar Keeran, he would automatically become the author of the work and the first Copyright would vest him or his legal heirs. In order to enable the defendants to claim a copyright in precedence over the plaintiff, the defendants will have to establish that the recordings were made by Pulavar Keeran under a contract of service or during the course of employment with the defendants. Unless such proof is available, the defendant cannot claim as a producer of the sound recording, the authorship over the copyright. 12.6. It will be useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indian Performing Right Society Ltd v. Eastern Indian Motion Pictures Association and Ors, reported in AIR 1977 SC 1443 , while considering the nature of the ownership of copyright in a cinematographic film, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the effect of provisos (b) and (c) to Section 17 of the Copyright Act, and in doing so the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed as follows: “17. This takes us to the core of the question namely, whether the producer of a cinematograph film can defeat the right of the composer of music or lyricst by engaging him. The key to the solution of this question lies in provisos (b) and (c) to Section 17 of the Act reproduced above which put the matter beyond doubt. According to the first of these provisos viz. proviso (b) when a cinematograph film producer commissions a composer of music or a lyricst for reward or valuable consideration for the purpose of making his cinematograph film, or composing music or lyric therefore i.e. the sounds for incorporation or absorption in the sound track associated with the film, which as already indicated, are included in a cinematograph film, he becomes the first owner of the copyright therein and no copyright subsists in the composer of the lyric or music so composed unless there is a contract to the contrary between the composer of the lyric or music on the one hand and the producer of the cinematograph film on the other. The same result follows according to aforesaid proviso (c) if the composer of music or lyric is employed under a contract of service or apprenticeship to compose the work. The same result follows according to aforesaid proviso (c) if the composer of music or lyric is employed under a contract of service or apprenticeship to compose the work. It is, therefore, crystal clear that the rights of a music composer or lyricist Can be defeated by the producer of a cinematograph film in the manner laid down in provisos (b) and (c) of Section 17 of the Act. We are fortified in this view by the decision in Wallerstein v. Herbert, (1867) Vol. 16, Law Times Reports 453, relied upon by Mr. Sachin Chaudhary where it was held that the music composed for reward by the plaintiff in pursuance of his engagement to give effect to certain situations in the drama entitled “Lady Andley’s Secret”, which was to be put on the stage was not an independent composition but was merely an accessory to and a part and parcel of the drama and the plaintiff did not have any right in the music.” A reading of the above paragraph would demonstrate that if a producer is to defeat the rights of the composer of the music or the lyricist, he should be able to show that the recording was made under a contract of service or apprenticeship or for valuable consideration. Therefore, if a producer of a sound recording is to claim that he is the author of the sound recording and as such the first copyright would vest in him he will have to demonstrate that the recording was done by the author for consideration or during the course of employment. In the absence of such evidence, it may not be possible for a producer of a sound recording to claim first copyright over the author. 12.7. It will be appropriate to quote the following observations of Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.R.Krishna Iyer, in the footnote appended to the judgment in Indian Performing Right Society Ltd v. Eastern Indian Motion Pictures Association and Others, reported in (1977) 2 SCC 820 , reads as follows: “22. The creative intelligence of man is displayed in multiform ways of aesthetic expression but it often happens that economic systems so operate that the priceless divinity which we call artistic or literary creativity in man is exploited and masters, whose works are invaluable, are victims of piffling payments. The creative intelligence of man is displayed in multiform ways of aesthetic expression but it often happens that economic systems so operate that the priceless divinity which we call artistic or literary creativity in man is exploited and masters, whose works are invaluable, are victims of piffling payments. World opinion in defence of the human right to intellectual property led to international conventions and municipal laws, commissions, codes and organisations, calculated to protect works of art. India responded to this universal need by enacting the Copyright Act, 1957.” 12.8. Article 2 of the berne convention for protection of literary and artistic works reads as follows: “The expression “literary and artistic works” shall include every production in the literary, scientific and artistic domain, whatever may be the mode or form of its expression, such as books, pamphlets and other writings; lectures, addresses, sermons and other works of the same nature; dramatic or dramatico-musical works; choreographic works and entertainments in dumb show; musical compositions with or without words; cinematographic works to which are assimilated works expressed by a process analogous to cinematography; works of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving and lithography; photographic works to which are assimilated works expressed by a process analogous to photography; works of applied art; illustrations, maps, plans, sketches and three-dimensional works relative to geography, topography, architecture or science. 12.9. The above judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was followed and reiterated in MRF Limited v. Metro Tyres Limited, reported in (2019) 79 PTC 368. The Copyright Act dealing with cinematography films protects the composite cinematography work, but at the same time it does not extinguish the copyrightable component parts in toto. Therefore, even in a cinematographic film there are certain parts to which the author of that particular work would be entitled to a copyright. Recently in M/s.Agi Music Sdn Bhd., v. Ilaiyaraja and another, reported in (2019) 4 LW 418 , this Court had recognised the right of the composer of the music of a cinematographic film over the musical part of the composition alone. This Court held that while the composer cannot prevent the movie from being replayed, he can prevent the song or the music alone from being replayed. 12.10. This Court held that while the composer cannot prevent the movie from being replayed, he can prevent the song or the music alone from being replayed. 12.10. I had already pointed out that there is no evidence to show that the recordings were made by Pulavar Keeran, under any contract of service or during the course of employment of Pulavar Keeran with the first defendant. Therefore, the inevitable answer to the first issue is that the plaintiff, as the legal heir of the author of the literary work is entitled to the first copyright of the works of Pulavar Keeran. Issue No.2: 13. The defendant had claimed that he would be the first owner of the copyright being the author of the sound recording that claim has been rejected for want of evidence under Issue No.1. An alternate claim that is sought to be projected by the first defendant is that he purchased the copyright for consideration. An assignment of copyright cannot be oral. Either a license or an assignment of a copyright has to be in writing in view of the specific provisions of Section 19 and Section 30 of the Copyright Act. Therefore, the claim of the defendant that he purchased the copyright by paying consideration cannot be accepted in the absence of any written agreement evidencing such assignment. Hence Issue No.2 is answered against the defendant. Issue No.3: 14. The third issue relates to Limitation. Article 88 of the Limitation Act, provides a period of three years to sue for infringement of a copyright, the period begins to run from the date of such infringement. In Bengal Waterproof Limited v. Bombay Waterproof Manufacturing Company and another, reported in (1997) 1 SCC 99 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that the cause of action for an infringement action is continuous and there would be a fresh cause of action that would arise on every infringement. Though the Hon’ble Supreme Court had dealt with a case of infringement of trademark in Bengal Waterproof Limited v. Bombay Waterproof Manufacturing Company and another, the Bombay High Court had applied the judgment in Bengal Waterproof Limited’s case, cited supra in a case relating to copyright infringement also in Manganlal Savani &anr. Though the Hon’ble Supreme Court had dealt with a case of infringement of trademark in Bengal Waterproof Limited v. Bombay Waterproof Manufacturing Company and another, the Bombay High Court had applied the judgment in Bengal Waterproof Limited’s case, cited supra in a case relating to copyright infringement also in Manganlal Savani &anr. V. Uttam Chitra & Ors., reported in 2008 SCC Online Bom 292, Hon’ble Mr.Justice Chandrachud D.Y., as he then was, had held that the infringement of a Copyright would also be a continuing cause of action and therefore, the question of limitation wouldnot arise as every infringement would furnish a distinct and separate cause of action. It was observed as follows: “15. The Supreme Court held that an act of passing off is an act of deceit under the Law of Torts. The Plaintiffs would get a fresh cause of action on every occasion when a deceitful act is committed by the Defendants. The infringement of a registered trade mark would be a continuing wrong so long as an infringement continues. The judgment of the Supreme Court is a complete answer to the contention based on delay. A copyright is a right in property. Each infringement furnishes a distinct and separate cause of action.” I am therefore unable to uphold the claim of the defendants that the suit is barred by limitation Issue No.4: 15. This issue relates to accounting. The plaintiff has claimed that the defendants have been selling the cassettes containing the lectures of Pulavar Keeran, the defendants have not denied that they were selling the cassettes. They are claimed a right in themselves to do so. By virtue of my findings on Issue Nos. 1 and 2, the sales made by the defendants become unauthorised and therefore, the defendants are liable to account for such sales to the plaintiff who is the copyright holder. Hence Issue No.4 is answered against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff. 16. By virtue of my findings on Issue Nos. 1 and 2, the sales made by the defendants become unauthorised and therefore, the defendants are liable to account for such sales to the plaintiff who is the copyright holder. Hence Issue No.4 is answered against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff. 16. In the light of the above findings on issues Nos.1 to 4, the plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that she is the owner of the copyright in the literary works of Pulavar Keeran, appended to the schedule to the pliant and the injunctive reliefs namely a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to surrender all master tapes containing original speeches, lectures and discourses and works of late Pulavar Keeran or any other records Audio cassettes, compact discs or any other media or device capable of reproducing the lectures, speeches and discourses contained in the schedule to the plaint. The plaintiff would also be entitled to a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using, copying, reproducing, selling distributing or broadcasting through radio, over the internet or any other media or in any manner exploiting or dealing with the records, Audio Cassettes, Compact Discs or any other storage device containing the speeches and lectures of late Pulavar Keeran. There will be a preliminary decree for accounts for a period of three years prior to the filing of the suit and thereafter. The plaintiff would also be entitled to the costs of the suit. 17. In fine the suit is decreed as prayed for with costs.