AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
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.
We see no reason to modify the lower Court''s order as to costs and dismiss the memorandum of objections with costs.