Joint authorship and acquiescence can defeat a late challenge to publication, making interim injunctions inappropriate.

A literary work may be treated as joint authorship where two contributors act under a common design and each makes material intellectual contributions to the composition. On the facts discussed, Maulana Azad supplied the ideas and subject matter, while Prof. Humayun Kabir shaped and recorded them, and Azad's review, alterations, additions, and approval supported joint authorship rather than sole authorship. Long-standing acquiescence by the legal representatives, including acceptance of royalties without objection, also supported ratification of the publication arrangement and estoppel against a late challenge. In the absence of irreparable injury, interlocutory restraint on publication was considered inappropriate, with the plaintiff's interest better protected through security and accounts.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the book was the sole authorship of Prof. Humayun Kabir or a joint literary work of Maulana Azad and Prof. Humayun Kabir; (ii) whether Prof. Humayun Kabir had authority to enter into the publication agreement and whether the plaintiff was entitled to interlocutory injunctive relief restraining publication of the sealed pages.

Issue (i): Whether the book was the sole authorship of Prof. Humayun Kabir or a joint literary work of Maulana Azad and Prof. Humayun Kabir.

Analysis: Authorship of a literary work depends not merely on the language used, but on intellectual contribution to the composition. Where two persons collaborate pursuant to a common design and both materially contribute to the creation of the work, they may be treated as joint authors. On the material available at the interlocutory stage, the book reflected active collaboration: Maulana Azad supplied the subject matter and ideas, Prof. Kabir recorded and shaped them in English, and Maulana Azad read, altered, added to, and approved the manuscript. Prof. Kabir's own preface and the surrounding conduct also negatived the contention that he alone was the author.

Conclusion: The work was treated as a joint authorship of Maulana Azad and Prof. Humayun Kabir, not the sole authorship of Prof. Humayun Kabir.

Issue (ii): Whether Prof. Humayun Kabir had authority to enter into the publication agreement and whether the plaintiff was entitled to interlocutory injunctive relief restraining publication of the sealed pages.

Analysis: The legal representatives of Maulana Azad were found to have acquiesced in and ratified the publication arrangement, including the royalty structure and the later publication of the complete work after the seal was to be broken. Acceptance of royalties over a long period, without objection, supported estoppel against challenging the agreement at a late stage. The Court also held that the balance of convenience favoured publication, that no irreparable injury was shown, and that the plaintiff's interest could be protected by securing accounts and security rather than by restraining publication.

Conclusion: Prof. Kabir's authority was upheld for the purpose of the arrangement, and the plaintiff was not entitled to an interim injunction.

Final Conclusion: The interim restraint against opening the sealed covers and publishing the complete book was vacated, while the defendant was directed to furnish security to safeguard the plaintiff's monetary interest.

Ratio Decidendi: A literary work may be jointly authored where there is intellectual collaboration pursuant to a common design, and long-standing acquiescence in a publication arrangement may bar a late challenge to it by the legal representatives of a deceased author, making interlocutory injunctive relief inappropriate absent irreparable injury.

---