Improvement in pleadings

Defendant failed to mention the document which made him owner of the suit land; he built his case on the basis of unregistered deed but in cross-examination revealed that he had purchased suit land from another person who had purchased the property from plaintiff

Improvement in case originally set up in pleadings was not permissible

Maxim "Secundum allegata et probata", which meant that a fact had to be alleged by a party before it is allowed to be proved, was applicable to the facts of the case

Plea of transfer of property in his favour was not taken by the defendant either in plaint or in present revision, same could not be taken during arguments in revision

Neither scribe, executant or marginal witnesses nor second deed was produced and proved

Defendant was bound to prove the agreement to sell

Having not produced the best available evidence, inference would be drawn against the defendant

High Court, in revision, could not interfere in the finding of fact and law by court of competent jurisdiction unless such findings suffered from jurisdictional defects, illegality or material irregularity

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.