Disputed Wills Cannot Fill Gap In Copyright Title; Legatee Takes Only What Testator Held: Delhi High Court
The Court refused interim injunction to a widow against The Delhi Law House (TDLH) over 47 titles; root of title in authors' assignment not disclosed.
The Delhi High Court has held that two disputed Wills cannot fill the gap in a claimed copyright title, since a legatee takes only what the testator held. Where the root of title in an assignment by the authors is not disclosed, it said, a claim resting on such Wills does not show a prima facie right.
Refusing an interim injunction in a suit over 47 titles, the Court dismissed the widow's application against The Delhi Law House (TDLH) and others. It noted that neither testator was an author and that a non-author can derive title only through a written assignment signed by the owner. It left the genuineness of the Wills for trial.
A Bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav referring to Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh (1992) 1 SCC 719, observed, “ The two Wills cannot fill this gap. A legatee takes only what the testator held…it is sufficient to note that a claim to copyright which rests on disputed testamentary instruments, and whose root in an assignment by the authors is not disclosed, does not demonstrate the existence of a prima facie right as contemplated in Dalpat Kumar (supra)”.
Advocate Gaurav Bahl appeared for the plaintiff and Advocate Sanjay Vashishtha appeared for the defendant.
The plaintiff, widow of late Subhash Sagar and daughter-in-law of late R.G. Sagar, sought to restrain defendants 1 to 4 from dealing in her claimed copyrights. She traced title to a 1962 certificate from M/s Law Book Company in favour of R.G. Sagar, his Will of 1995 and her husband's Will of 2021. She alleged that The Delhi Law House, a firm formed in 2021 by defendants 2 and 3, was publishing and selling the titles without her licence. Defendant 5, a family firm aligned with her, admitted her averments.
The plaintiff moved an I.A under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, where Defendants 1 to 4 contended that authors are first owners, that no written assignment from any author was produced, and that the 1995 Will was suspicious, unregistered and unprobated. They also raised pleas under Sections 17, 21 and 52(1)(q) of the Copyright Act and a Section 12A Commercial Courts Act objection.
Applying Dalpat Kumar and Shruti Manav Sharma v. v. Sunanina Singh 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1549, the Court noted that the three conditions are cumulative and cautioned against a mini-trial. It reasoned that under Sections 17 and 19 of the Copyright Act, and Section 5 of the 1911 Act for older works, the author is first owner and title passes only by signed written assignment. R.G. Sagar was a publisher, not an author, and no assignment from any author was shown.
The Court distinguished Academy of General Education v. Malini Mallya, where the testator was himself the author and title was conceded. It held that Midas Hygiene v. Sudhir Bhatia (2004) 3 SCC 90 presupposes prima facie ownership, that no goodwill of the plaintiff was shown for passing off, and that the balance of convenience lay against her because the books had long been published under the family firm. Her loss was held computable and compensable in damages.
The Court dismissed the application, clarifying that its observations are prima facie and that all issues, including the genuineness of the Wills, are left for trial. The suit was listed before the Joint Registrar on October 29, 2026.
Cause Title: Shakti Sagar v. The Delhi Law House & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:8862).
Appearances:
Plaintiff: Advocate Gaurav Bahl.
Defendant: Advocates Sanjay Vashishtha, Lavkesh Bhambhani, Siddhartha and Aditya.