Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.20 seconds)C.N.Ramappa Gowda vs C.C.Chaqndergowda (D) By Lrs.& Anr on 23 April, 2012
In support of their case, learned counsel relied upon
the judgment reported in 2012 (5) SCC 265 in the case of
C. N. RAMAPPA GOWDA VS. C.C. CHANDREGOWDA DEAD
BY LRS AND ANOTHER, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court held
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:10366-DB
RFA No. 570 of 2023
that, even in the absence of filing the written statement, the
Court cannot pass the judgment and decree merely placing
reliance on plaint and affidavit averments. Thus, the learned
counsel contended that the judgment and decree passed by the
trial Court in O.S.No.11 of 2022 is contrary to the above
principles.
Modula India vs Kamakshya Singh Deo on 27 September, 1988
10. Learned counsel further relied upon the decision
reported in AIR 1989 SC 162 in the case of MODULA INDIA
V. KAMAKSHYA SINGH DEO, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court
held that it is well established proposition that no oral testimony
can be considered satisfactory or valid unless it is tested by
cross examination. Mere statement of the plaintiff's witnesses
cannot constitute the plaintiff's evidence unless it is tested by
cross examination. The right of defence to cross-examine
plaintiff's witnesses can be looked upon not as a part of its own
strategy of defence but rather as a requirement without which
the plaintiff's evidence cannot be acted upon. Thus, it should be
possible to take the view that though the defence of the tenant
has been struck out, there is nothing in law to preclude him
from demonstrating that the plaintiff's witnesses are not
speaking the truth or that the evidence put forward by the
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:10366-DB
RFA No. 570 of 2023
plaintiff is not sufficient to fulfill the terms of the statute.
1