Does a defendant have to plead and prove that they breached a conditional sale agreement in order to overturn the judgment of the trial court?

Defendants contend that to uphold the judgment of the trial court would work a forfeiture abhorrent to the law, but they made no such contention before the trial court. It is urged for the first time before this court. If defendants desired relief from their forfeiture, they should have asked for it in the court below under the provisions of section 3275 of the Civil Code which provides: 'Whenever, by the terms of an obligation, a party thereto incurs a forfeiture, * * * by reason of his failure to comply with its provisions, he may be relieved therefrom, upon making full compensation to the other party, except in case of a grossly negligent, willful, or fraudulent breach of duty.' This section presupposes that the party seeking relief is in default, and, in order to secure relief under its terms is it necessary for him to plead and prove facts that will justify its application. Barkis v. Scott, 34 Cal.2d 116, 120, 208 P.2d 367, and cases cited therein. None were pleaded and proved in the instant case. Defendants' defense was that the leases were made with the consent, either actual or implied, of the plaintiffs, and that they had not violated any of the provisions of the conditional sale agreement with plaintiffs.