Short Note : 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against a decree passed by District Judge, Ratlam, maintaining the judgment and decree passed by Civil Judge Class II, Jaora in Civil suit No. 58-A of 1969 wherein a decree for possession and mandatory injunction had been passed in favour of the respondents. Held : Apart from it, no specific plea about adverse possession was raised and Ex. D/1 which is the only document produced in favour of the appellant defendants, itself goes to show that about 4 or 5 years before the filing of the suit the defendant-appellants claimed to have taken this land on rent from Dewa and had sought permission from the Gram Panchayat for constructing a structure thereon. This document D/1 therefore clearly indicates that if at all the defendants had attempted to set up any kind of claim, it was about 4 or 5 years before the date of filing of the suit. And in this view of the matter also, therefore, the question of adverse possession could not be raised. 2. As regards estoppel, it is not disputed that there is not a word said about this plea in the written-statement. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants also could not refer to any part of the pleadings to indicate that there is any foundation laid for raising a plea of estoppel. Apart from it, there is nothing in evidence to indicate that the appellants started constructing the house in presence of or within the knowledge of Sewa who is the predecessor-in-title of the respondents. Apparently therefore, the plea of estoppel depends upon a set of facts to be pleaded and proved and in absence of any pleading of the kind, or any facts appearing in the evidence, it could not be raised for the first time in second appeal. In fact, as it appears, in both the Courts below this plea was not even suggested. In view of this, the contention advanced by learned counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted. 3. For application of section 51 of T. P. Act, the appellants must allege and prove that they are transferees of immovable property. They have further to allege and prove that believing in good faith that they are entitled to the property absolutely they spent On improvement of the property. 3. For application of section 51 of T. P. Act, the appellants must allege and prove that they are transferees of immovable property. They have further to allege and prove that believing in good faith that they are entitled to the property absolutely they spent On improvement of the property. Admittedly, no pleas or facts necessary for application of section 51 ibid are raised in the written-statement. The parties had no opportunity to lead evidence to prove the facts necessary for application of this provision. In fact, the appellants pleaded that they had purchased this land about 14 or 15 years back from Dewa. But when they produced the document Ex. D/1 it showed that they had taken this land on rent 4 or 5 years before the date of the suit. In view of this it could not be said that the appellants pleaded and proved that they were bona fide transferees of property and in good faith constructed the structure thereon. Therefore the contention that the appellants are entitled to the benefit under section 51, Transfer of Property Act also cannot be accepted. Appeal dismissed.