40. Paragraph 10 expressly provides that the applicants fail to reach a compromise in the “without your consent” remedy, which of course means the agreement of Rajah von Tuni. According to their Lordships, the construction of these three clauses, 10, 11 and 12 of the agreement of 14 August 1907, which would make the agreement of the Rajah s of Tuni and Vakil designated a precondition for the realization of a compromise, is not their true construction. Both men died in 1911. Given the uncertainty of human life which the contracting parties must take into account in the provision of possible future events, it would be inoperative, if not more absurd, for the parties to have entered into such a contract in August 1907 which the High Court interpreted for this contract. While it would be entirely commercial, barely rational and perhaps intelligent, for them to engage in it if the necessary things in this case were only necessary if it were possible. According to their lordships, it is almost certain that the parties to this agreement intended to do so, that this was what it was intended to mean, and that it was therefore necessary to include a term for the consent mentioned to be granted as far as possible, and that the agreement of the Rajah itself on a compromise accepted by its representatives was not such a condition. when it had become impossible to give it away. Their lords therefore believe that the decree from which it was appealed was wrong and should be set aside with costs, and that the decree of the junior judge should be reinstated, and they will humbly advise Her Majesty accordingly. 39. When establishing written or printed documents, it is legitimate to consider their true meaning, if questionable, to take into account the circumstances of their creation and the purpose on which they were intended and envisaged.
The dispute, which was to be compromised, was launched in 1903. He had set fire to the fire for four years during the execution of this agreement of 14 August 1907. The decision of the case in the original Court was not made until 1908. The appeal to the High Court was not introduced until 1909 and the compromise was not adopted until 12 May 1913. The complainants in the complaint and probably their Vakil knew all about these delays. Raja von Tuni, when he became a party to the agreement of 22 May 1906, must also have been aware of these delays in the negotiations that gave rise to this agreement and by the agreement itself; Unless these people have all been without intelligence, they must have warned that something similar could happen in the future, and yet they are accepted by the High Court, expressly and clearly, that unless the Rajah of Tuni, if the Vakil did not live long enough to be able to accept and approve no compromise could be found for the compromise contained in the clause. 33. The only point to be addressed is the dissertation of pages 299 and 300 of the protocol in the last three paragraphs of the agreement of 14 August 1907. The verdict of the High Court is as follows: – 21. This agreement and the previous agreement of 1906 are essentially based on similar lines. The maximum amount that should be advanced below the first, Rs.
1.50,000 and under the second part 2.00,000, but the distinguishing feature of the second is that the strict accounts of the amounts advanced and spent must be given, receipts are given for these amounts, if they receive all payments properly guaranteed, advances of other necessary amounts and asked only if these receipts and vouchers have been given.