What did the Delhi High Court decide?

The Court held that Maulana Azad and Prof. Humayun Kabir were joint authors of India Wins Freedom and that consent of Azad’s legal heirs was required.

What is joint authorship in simple words?

When two or more people create a work together intending their parts to merge into one whole, they are joint authors and co-owners of copyright.

Why did consent of legal heirs matter here?

Because one joint author had died. For publication decisions, the consent of the deceased author’s legal representatives was necessary.

Did the Court grant an injunction?

No. Since consent had been given earlier and benefits accepted for years, the plaintiff was estopped; the injunction was refused.

What practical rule does this case teach students?

Focus on intention and collaboration. If contributions were meant to form one book, copyright is shared and heirs’ consent may be needed after death.

Law Easy

02 November, 2025

251

Najma Heptulla v. Orient Longman Ltd. (1989) — Joint Authorship & Copyright | The Law Easy

Najma Heptulla v. Orient Longman Ltd. (1989)

A classroom-style guide to joint authorship, consent of legal heirs, and copyright ownership under the Copyright Act, 1957.

```

Delhi High Court 1989 — AIR 1989 Del 63 Copyright ~6 min read

joint authorship legal heirs consent copyright ownership

```

CASE_TITLE: Najma Heptulla v. Orient Longman Ltd.
AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi
LOCATION: India

PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: joint authorship, copyright, legal heirs consent
SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: India Wins Freedom, Maulana Azad, Humayun Kabir, publication rights

PUBLISH_DATE: 01 Nov 2025 Slug: najma-heptulla-v-orient-longman-ltd

Quick Summary

This case is about who owns the book India Wins Freedom. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad narrated his life in Urdu. Prof. Humayun Kabir wrote it down and shaped it into a book. The Delhi High Court said both acted with the intention to create one work. So, they were joint authors. Since one author had died, the consent of his legal heirs was needed for publication decisions. Past consents and benefits taken by the heirs stopped a late challenge. The injunction claim failed.

Issues

Was Maulana Azad the sole author of India Wins Freedom?
If not, does the law treat Maulana Azad and Prof. Kabir as joint authors?
After one joint author’s death, is consent of legal heirs required for publication steps?

Rules

Joint Authorship (Copyright Act, 1957): When more than one author creates a work intending their parts to merge into one whole.
Co-ownership: Joint authors are co-owners of the copyright in that work.
Consent of Legal Heirs: If a joint author is deceased, his/her legal representatives’ consent is required for decisions affecting the work.

Citation: Najma Heptulla v. Orient Longman Ltd., AIR 1989 Del 63 (Delhi HC).

Facts (Timeline)

Collaboration: Maulana Azad narrated his autobiography in Urdu; Prof. Kabir took notes and drafted the book text.

1958 — Death of Maulana Azad: Before publication, Prof. Kabir deposited the manuscript and extra 30 pages with the National Archives as trustee.

Publishing Deal: Agreement with Orient Longman Ltd. for publication (initially excluding the 30 pages). Heirs, including Fatima Begum and Noorudin Khan, consented.

Property Decision: Court recognized Noorudin as sole owner of rights in Maulana’s writings (published/unpublished) for certain purposes.

1988 — Extra Pages: Orient Longman sought to publish the additional 30 pages; Noorudin consented.

Dispute: Plaintiff (Fatima Begum’s granddaughter) objected, claiming heirs’ rights over Azad’s writings.

Timeline visual for Najma Heptulla v. Orient Longman Ltd.

Arguments

Appellant

Maulana Azad was the sole author; narration equals authorship.
Publication of the extra 30 pages needs fresh consent of heirs.
Trust and publishing steps exceeded authority granted earlier.

Respondent

The book is a joint work: Azad’s narrative + Kabir’s writing/editing.
Prior written consents were given and relied upon for years.
Heirs accepted benefits; they are estopped from challenging now.

Judgment

The Delhi High Court held that Prof. Kabir and Maulana Azad were co-authors. The Court valued the intention to merge contributions into one book over rigid technicalities. Evidence showed that the legal heirs had consented in writing to the publication arrangement. Because the heirs had long accepted its benefits, they were estopped from disputing it later. The request for injunction was rejected.

Ratio

Where two persons intend their inputs—narration and writing—to form a single work, the law treats it as joint authorship. After a joint author’s death, decisions touching the work require consent of legal representatives. Long-standing consents and benefits create estoppel against a later challenge.

Why It Matters

Clarifies joint authorship for oral narration + written drafting collaborations.
Shows the role of intention and consent in copyright ownership.
Warns that heirs who accept benefits may be barred from later objections.

Key Takeaways

Joint work = intention to merge contributions.
Heirs’ consent is required after death of a joint author.
Written consents carry lasting weight.

Estoppel applies if benefits were enjoyed.
Injunction denied when long consent exists.
Outcome: No injunction.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “SPEAK + WRITE = SHARE.”

Intent: Did both plan one book?
Consent: After death, did heirs agree?
Conduct: Did heirs accept benefits (estoppel)?

IRAC

Issue	Rule	Application	Conclusion
Was Azad the sole author, or was there joint authorship with Kabir? Were heirs’ consents needed?	Copyright Act, 1957: joint authorship; co-ownership; heirs’ consent where a joint author is deceased.	Azad narrated; Kabir drafted. Their intention was to produce one book. Written consents existed; heirs accepted benefits.	Joint authorship confirmed; heirs’ consent required; estoppel applies; injunction refused.

Glossary

Joint Authorship: Two or more creators intend their inputs to merge into one work; they share copyright.
Legal Representatives: Persons who act for a deceased author’s rights, including consent for use of the work.
Estoppel: Law stops a person from denying what they earlier allowed, especially after taking benefits.

FAQs

Both Maulana Azad and Prof. Humayun Kabir, as they intended one unified book—narration plus writing.

Heirs had earlier consented and accepted benefits for years. The Court applied estoppel and refused the injunction.

Record the intention to create one work and obtain clear, written consents—especially for later publications or additions.

Not always. If another shapes, writes, and both intended one work, the law may treat it as joint authorship.

```

Comment

Nothing for now