Secundum Allegata Et Probata

Who lodges a fact must prove it.

Applicability.

Where claim of the petitioner was certified by the concerned officials and the same was not questioned in the Constitutional petition, the rule of secundum allegata et probata was not applicable in too strict terms.

Facts not raised in the pleadings cannot be argued.

Party could not be allowed to lead evidence in respect of plea not taken in the pleadings and even if such evidence was brought on record, the same could not be looked into

Where the defendant did not mention in his written reply anything about encroachment by the plaintiff but such plea was raised during evidence led by the defendant, admission of such evidence was in violation of the rule of "seeondum allegate adprobeta" in circumstances.

Party has first to plead and then to prove that plea.

Vendee of co-sharer who owned undivided Khata in common with another was clothed with the same rights that vendor had in such property

Where vendor was in exclusive possession of portion of joint land and had transferred his possession to his vendee, so long as there was no partition between co-sharers, vendee must be regarded as stepping into the shoes of his transferor qua his ownership rights in joint property, to the extent of area purchased by him, provided that area in question did not exceed the share which transferor owned in whole property

Whenever co

sharer in joint Khata sells particular Khasra number or portion thereof, sale is entered only i:; column of cultivation containing names of vendor and vendee and ownership column remains unchanged

Vendee of specific plot acquired from co-owner, in undivided Khatz, thus, becomes co-owner in that Khata

Respondent being vendee of specific Khasra number to joint property could validly lay claim to tie a co-sharer and enforce his right of pre-emption on that score

Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.

Rule of secundum allegata et probata shall have no application in circumstances.

Plaintiffs having relied upon documents in question, were required to satisfy Court about the correctness and genuineness of same.

[Maxim].

Party fern only succeed according to what was alleged and proved.

A fact has to be alleged by a party before it is allowed to be proved.

A fact has to be alleged by a party before it is allowed to be proved.

O. VI, r. 2-Maxim : Secundum allegata et probate-Appellant in his plaint, relying solely on pronote and not taking alternative plea of original transaction in case of pronote being found inadmissible-Appellant, held, could not be allowed in second appeal to put forth a different basis for cause of action, namely original consideration.-[Second appeal].

Case disclosed in evidence-Held, must be consistent with averments trade in pleadings, neither shaken in cross-examination nor disproved in rebuttal.[Maxim-Evidence].

Secundum altegata et probata (Before anything is sought to be proved it has got to be alleged)-Plea not raised at any of earlier stages of trial-Not allowed to be raised before High Court.

[Plea]

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VI, r. 2-PladingsStatements of fact-Whether plaintiff must stale on which specific fact, of the facts pleaded, he relies-Plaintiff may be deemed to rely on all facts set forth in pleadings-Inconsistent pleadings-Test for determining-Alternative pleadings are not necessarily inconsistent-Variations of case-Question to be decided on ground of notice and prejudice-Maxim- (Principle)- Secondum allegata probata ("a fact has to be alleged in pleadings before it is allowed to be proved)."