Skip to content


M.S.M.S. Meyappa Chetty and ors. Vs. Perianan Chetty and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectContract
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in7Ind.Cas.217a
AppellantM.S.M.S. Meyappa Chetty and ors.
RespondentPerianan Chetty and ors.
Excerpt:
document, construction of - principal and agent--agent charged with embezzlement--composition of disputes--document exonerating agent from all 'mistakes'--'mistakes' include fraud. - .....right in his interpretation. the settlement was intended to be complete. we accept the subordinate judge's reason in paragraphs nos. 16 and 17 of his judgment for coming to that conclusion. we may point out that although the english word 'mistake' is used in the tamil document, the word, according to its common use in such a context, is wide enough to cover all kinds of default and error including fraud. we do not think there is any reason to suppose, in the face of the language that the 4th defendant is no longer liable to be punished at all, the subsistence of a liability in the supposed contingency that no advance would be made to m.r.a.m. we must overrule the appellant's contention and dismiss the appeal as against the 4th defendant also with costs.2. we see no reason to modify the.....
Judgment:

1. The plaintiffs do not press the appeal against defendants Nos. 1 to 3. It is dismissed with costs against them. As regards the 4th defendant, the question depends on the construction of Exhibit III. After the termination of the agency, the plaintiffs charged the 4th defendant with misappropriation and false entries in the accounts. Exhibits VI and XV show that the plaintiff did not believe that the advance to M.R.A.M. was true. The plaintiffs and the 4th defendant then settled their differences and Exhibit III is the result. We think the Subordinate Judge is right in his interpretation. The settlement was intended to be complete. We accept the Subordinate Judge's reason in paragraphs Nos. 16 and 17 of his judgment for coming to that conclusion. We may point out that although the English word 'mistake' is used in the Tamil document, the word, according to its common use in such a context, is wide enough to cover all kinds of default and error including fraud. We do not think there is any reason to suppose, in the face of the language that the 4th defendant is no longer liable to be punished at all, the subsistence of a liability in the supposed contingency that no advance would be made to M.R.A.M. We must overrule the appellant's contention and dismiss the appeal as against the 4th defendant also with costs.

2. We see no reason to modify the lower Court's order as to costs and dismiss the memorandum of objections with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //