Devadoss, J.

1. The first point raised by Mr. Chenchiah for the appellants is that the plaintiff had parted with her right to the property under Ex. II and, therefore, she had no right to bring the suit. This point was not specifically raised in the first Court but was raised in a way in the grounds of appeal to the lower appellate Court. The learned District Judge held that the appellants were not entitled to raise this point in appeal as they did not put forward this case in the lower Court. The defendants did not rely upon want of title in the plaintiff in their defence to the suit. During the examination of the witnesses this point was brought out and the plaintiff was asked whether she had executed Ex. II to which she replied she did and that it did not take effect. It is not proper for the appellants now to raise this contention at this stage, for that would depend upon facts which should have been proved in the Court of first instance. Granting that Ex. II was executed by the plaintiff with the intention to convey title, yet, inasmuch as she continued to be in possession of the property till 1914 when she complained of trespass by the Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 in this su