The Delhi High Court has ruled that there is no proof to show that author David Davidar's novel 'The House of the Blue Mangoes' copied elements of Sivasundari Bose’s manuscript for her novel 'Golden Stag.' [David Davidar Vs Shivsundari Bose].

Justice Tejas Karia passed the ruling on two cross suits filed by Davidar and Bose against each other.

Davidar sought to restrain Bose from making groundless threats of copyright infringement against him. Bose sought a declaration that Davidar's 2002 novel was based on manuscripts Bose had submitted in 1996 and 2000, which were the basis for her 2006 novel.

The Court, however, found that Bose had failed to establish that Davidar had access to her manuscript before he published his novel.

"Sivasundari Bose has not established that Mr. Davidar had access to the manuscript before the publication of David’s Book in 2002, which was prior to publication of Sivasundari’s Book in 2006. For a claim of copyright infringement to succeed, it must be shown that Mr. Davidar had access to the manuscript for Sivasundari’s Book," the Court said.

Further, the Court noted that Bose had only submitted a few pages of her manuscript to Penguin in 1996, before submitting the full manuscript in 2000. The manuscript underwent several revisions before Bose's book was published in 2006, after Davidar's novel was published in 2002.

The Court opined that it would need to compare Bose's 2000 manuscript with Davidar's 2006 novel to examine if a case of plagiarism or copyright infringement was made out.

However, Bose was not able to produce the manuscript she had submitted to Penguin in 2000, leaving the Court unable to verify her claim that Davidar copied elements of her manuscript.

"The original manuscript purportedly submitted to Penguin India on 24.01.2000 has not been produced by Ms. Sivasundari Bose. As a result, it cannot be verified whether the elements of Sivasundari’s Book, which are alleged to have been copied by Mr. David Davidar in his book, were present in the version submitted to Penguin India...it cannot be held that the complete manuscript of Sivasundari’s Book was available to Mr. David Davidar, if at all," the Court said.

Nevertheless, the Court also observed that since both works deal with similar themes involving a multi-generational saga set in Tamil Nadu, some degree of similarity is unavoidable.

It reiterated that copyright law protects the expression of ideas, and not underlying themes. It added that the differences between the two works are greater than their similarities.

"The differences between David's Book and Sivasundari's Book significantly outweigh any purported similarities, which alone are inadequate to support a claim of copyright infringement in favour of Ms. Sivasundari Bose. The inclusion of maps and family trees is common in multi-generational sagas and cannot be uniquely attributed to Ms. Sivasundari Bose. Therefore, she does not have exclusive copyright over such elements ... David’s Book does not
infringe the copyright of Ms. Sivasundari Bose in Sivasundari’s Book," it held.

Bose had claimed that she began writing Golden Stag in 1987 and had completed a draft by 1991. She said she submitted the manuscript to Penguin India, and that the work later reached Davidar, who was then heading the publishing house.

According to her, she discovered similarities in 2003 when her son came across Davidar’s book. She relied on a detailed comparison chart of passages, pointing to similarities in scenes, phrases, characters, and narrative elements.

In response, Davidar filed a suit under Section 60 (which protects individuals from baseless threats of copyright infringement lawsuits) of the Copyright Act. He sought a declaration that the allegations were baseless, along with an injunction against further threats and damages for defamation.

Bose subsequently filed her own suit in 2012 seeking a declaration that 'The House of the Blue Mangoes' was based on her manuscript for her novel 'Golden Stag.' On this ground, she also sought a share in profits made through the sale of Davidar's novel.

The Court decided both cases together. It framed various legal issues including whether Davidar had access to Bose’s manuscript, whether there was copyright infringement, and whether Bose’s claims were barred by limitation.

“There is no question of copyright in any historical events either in general or in relation to any particular region, nor can there be any copyright in a whole genre of fiction such as the commonplace genre of multi-generational family sagas," the Court held while examining Bose's copyright claim.

Bose had relied on a detailed comparison chart of passages to argue that similarities in scenes, phrases, characters and narrative elements could not be coincidental.

Rejecting the claim, the Court noted that Davidar had started writing his book in 1988, with the final draft completed by 2000 after multiple revisions, and that the work had been independently edited and published.

"When two authors address the same subject matter, some degree of similarity is unavoidable due to the shared central concept; however, these similarities or coincidences alone do not constitute piracy or plagiarism," it held.

The Court also dismissed Davidar’s suit under Section 60 of the Copyright Act, holding that in light of Bose having instituted substantive infringement proceedings, the claim of “groundless threats” did not survive.

Moreover, it also rejected Davidar's claim that Bose had defamed him by speaking about the plagiarism allegations in communications to fellow authors and in a interview with media outlet, 'The Outlook'.

"Ms. Sivasundari Bose’s communications regarding her grievance to her close associates and friends were conducted in good faith and served the purpose of safeguarding her rights. There is insufficient evidence to establish a claim of defamation... With regard to Ms. Sivasundari Bose’s interview with Outlook India, a person claiming in good faith that she believes that her case has merits and the matter is sub judice before the court cannot constitute defamation," the Court said.

Davidar was represented by Advocates Pravin Anand, Prachi Agarwal, Medha Singh and Manan Mondal from Anand & Anand.

Bose was represented by Advocates Ritu Singh Mann, Sohrab Singh Mann and Shivani.

[Read Judgment]