JUDGMENT

Wazir Hasan, A J C - This is the defendant's appeal. The cause of action for the suit, out of which this appeal arises, was founded on an alleged infringement of a patent granted by the Government of India to one George Perfect of Bara Banki for an invention in the working of a certain type of a sugarcane machine then in existence. The patent is described as No. 1143 of the 28th August 1913. The Letters Patent granting the monopoly of the invention to George Perfect is exhibited in its original in this case, and is marked as Exhibit 8. The title to the benefit of the Letters Patent has devolved upon the plaintiffs by assignment from George Perfect under a deed, dated the 16th September 1922 (Ex. 11). It was alleged that in the months of October and November 1921 the defendant-appellant, Sheoratan Singh, who also carries on the business of manufacturing and hiring out sugarcane crushing' machines, infringed the plaintiffs' patent in the manufacturing and hiring out of such machines. The material defence to this, with which I am now concerned in appeal, was the denial of the infringement. The trial Court found in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant, and in result granted the following relief to the plaintiffs:

(1) Damages to the extent of Rs. 500.

(2) A perpetual injunction prohibiting the defendant from infringing the plaintiffs' patent by manufacturing three roller mills as described in specification No. 1143 of the 28th August 1913, read with the amendment made on the 17th April 1916.

(3) A further mandatory injunction that the defendant should hand over to the plaintiffs all machines in his possession or which have been let out by him which infringe the plaintiffs' patent.

(4) Costs of the suit.

2. The specification of the invention as described in the Letters Patent, and as subsequently amended is in the following words:

In a three roller sugarcane mill of the type in which the pinions are above the top beam of the frame, and in which the driving roller has a flange, which extends over the other two rollers, a bruising roller touching the driving roller and nearly touching the companion roller so that no cane guide plate between these rollers B and C is used or required substantially as described.

3. Within the Letters Patent is included a plan explaining the specification. On a careful consideration of the language used in the Letters Patent and also of the decision of the Controller of Patents dated the 21st April 1914 (Ex. D. 1) the construction which I place on the specification of the invention, as given in the Letters Patent, is that the essence of the invention in favour of which the patent was granted lay in the relative position of the two rollers described in the plan C and B and stated in the specification as "bruising roller... nearly touching the companion roller." The closest proximity of the two rollers without actually touching each other had the advantage of dispensing with what was called the cane guide plate. The intended result of attaching the cane guide plate was to prevent the cane from slipping out of the line of pressure created by simultaneous revolutions of both the rollers. That result was obtained but not in full measure. The bringing of the two rollers so near each other, as is shown in the plan referred to above, was a new invention of attaining the old result. The trial Court has found that the machines manufactured by the defendant have the two rollers in close connexion as well as the cane guide plate and the latter is a mere useless appendage intended to serve as a screen to the infringement.

4. The arguments in support of the appeal proceeded on three separate lines:

(1) That the particulars of the infringement were not stated in the plaint.

(2) That there was no infringement.

(3) That the Belief No. 2 granted by the lower Court was vague and indefinite and that the Relief No. 3 was unjustified.

5. As to the first line of the attack, I am of opinion that the plaint