Plaintiffs rely for the applicability of this statute to the facts in this case upon certain decisions of this court in litigation between private individuals wherein this court has held uniformly that where a person places improvements upon the real estate of another without an agreement, express or implied, permitting their removal, they become a part of the realty and their removal therefrom may be enjoined. Among these authorities are: Bridges v. Thomas, 8 Okla. 620, 58 P. 955; Kilgore v. Lyle, 30 Okla. 596, 120 P. 626; Etchen v. Ferguson, 59 Okla. 280, 159 P. 306; McDowel v. King et al., 186 Okla. 90, 96 P.2d 37. In this connection they argue the facts and circumstances of this case show there was no implied agreement.

They neither alleged nor proved that Clarence Skinner was the owner of the buildings upon the property with an agreement permitting him to remove them and in the absence of such agreement the buildings belonged to the owner of the land. McDowell v. King, 186 Okla. 90, 96 P.2d 37. Since the evidence did not establish that defendant Clarence Skinner had any transferable interest in the buildings upon the property, or that his possession of the property was in any wise subordinate to plaintiffs, the trial court did not err in sustaining the demurrer to the evidence as to such defendant. The defendants Francis Skinner and Mary Skinner filed a disclaimer of any right, title or interest in the property, and there was not ground for judgment against them established by the evidence.

The evidence reveals retail gasoline products are obtainable from other establishments in town and Appellant may still conduct his grocery business. ¶ 10 Appellant also contends unless Appellee can produce an agreement permitting the removal of the USTs, the buried facilities became fixtures under McDowell v. King, 1939 OK 509, 96 P.2d 37. There, the Court quoted Etchen v. Ferguson, 59 Okla. 280, 159 P. 306 (1916), for the general proposition: "When a person affixes his property to the land of another without an agreement permitting him to remove it, the thing affixed belongs to the owner of the land" ¶ 11 Appellee urges Appellant failed to raise this issue in the pleadings filed with the trial court and thus this argument should not be considered by this Court.