Karuppanan Ambalam Vs. Ramasami Chetti

Karuppanan Ambalam vs Ramasami Chetti

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Nov 12, 1897

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/776608

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/776608
Court: Chennai
Decided On: Nov 12, 1897
Subject: Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Key legal issue: Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Karuppanan Ambalam

Respondent

Ramasami Chetti

Legal References

Cases Referred: Dewany Roy v. Sundar Tewary
Reported In: (1898)8MLJ165

Excerpt

- 1. the suit was to recover back money paid in excess of the amount due, under pressure. it was not a suit to recover compensation for illegal, improper or excessive distress or attachment within the meaning of article 35, clause j of the 2nd schedule of the provincial small cause court's act of 1887. this has been hold to apply only to cases where the suit is brought to recover damages for the tort, dewany roy v. sundar tewary, i. l. r., 24 c., 163 and not for many paid in. excess, and with this ruling we agree. the suit is therefore one cognizable by a court of small causes as the munsif held.

Full Judgment

1. The suit was to recover back money paid in excess of the amount due, under pressure. It was not a suit to recover compensation for illegal, improper or excessive distress or attachment within the meaning of Article 35, Clause j of the 2nd Schedule of the Provincial Small Cause Court's Act of 1887. This has been hold to apply only to cases where the suit is brought to recover damages for the tort, Dewany Roy v. Sundar Tewary, I. L. R., 24 C., 163 and not for many paid in. excess, and with this ruling we agree. The suit is therefore one cognizable by a Court of Small Causes as the Munsif held.

Same Parties Karuppanan Ambalam vs Ramasami Chetti Same Subject Civil

Civil