DAMODAR LAXMAN LELE Vs. KASHINATH WAMAN LELE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the defendant was the owner of a printing press at Wai and from that press he published a paper called "Modavritta" and he also published a supplement to that paper which consisted of a translation of a certain portion of a Sanskrit book called "Devibhagwat" into the Marathi language. This state of things continued until the 9 January 1903. On the 9 January 1903, the plaintiff and defendant entered into two agreements,-one Ex. 11 and the other Ex. 13. These documents are evidently not drawn up by a lawyer, though judging from the arguments of the defendant before us, we certainly think that he has a certain amount of knowledge of law, which he made use of in these documents. The effect of these documents is, in the first place, that the plaintiff purchased the defendant's right in the printing press and newspaper for Rs. 3,999. Ex. 11 goes on to say that defendant is to write a certain number of articles every week for the paper and further defendant was to go on giving translations of " Devibhagwat" from week to week and in consideration of that he was to get Rs. 25 per month from the plaintiff. Then we have Ex. 13, passed by the defendant to the plaintiff, in which he says that he has no right or interest whatever in the printing and copyright in respect of the newspaper and in the Devibhagwat. The parties acted under these agreements until 12 August 1903 and from that date defendant ceased translating the portions of "Devibhagwat" for the plaintiff and on the 16th November 1903 defendant announced his intention of translating the "Devibhagwat" in connection with a paper called "Dharma," which he had started himself after the sale of the "Modavritta." Then it appears that the defendant in his anxiety to gut a good sale for his paper " Dharma," sent out notices to his former subscribers to "Modavritta" that they ought not to subscribe to "Modavritta" but to "Dharma."

(2.) On these material facts the plaintiff filed his suit. As appears above, the various matters must be kept distinct.

(3.) The first question is, is the defendant entitled, after having sold all his right, title and interest in the "Modavritta" to the plaintiff, to solicit his old customers of the "Modavritta" when it was under his control. On this point Labouchere v. Dawson (1872) 13 Eq.322, Ginesi V/s. Cooper & Co. (1880) 14 Ch. D. 596 and Heaton V/s. Beachey [1904] 1 Ch. 67, 68 have been cited. These are all clear that where a person sells his goodwill in a business, the vendor after sale is not entitled to solicit his old customers to the prejudice of the purchaser. In soliciting his old customers the defendant committed a breach of his contract and his obligation to the plaintiff. An injunction must go in respect of this.