Appeal dismissed; defendants' plea rejected; remand denied; insufficient evidence for ownership claim.

The appeal against the trial court's decree for rendition of accounts and injunction was dismissed. The defendants' attempt to set aside the ex parte order under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. was rejected. The defendants' plea for remand was denied due to inadequate pleadings. The first defendant claimed ownership under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, but the court found insufficient evidence and lack of proper pleadings to support this claim. The court emphasized the need for written contracts and possession in part performance, ultimately ruling that the appeal lacked the necessary legal basis for invoking Section 53A.

---

---

Issues:
1. Appeal against the decree of the trial court for rendition of accounts and injunction.
2. Rejection of the petition under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte order.
3. Defendants' plea for remand to substantiate their contentions.
4. Plaintiff's claim of misappropriation and lack of rendering accounts by the first defendant.
5. First defendant's defense under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.
6. Second defendant's possession and claim under Section 53A.
7. Requirement of proper pleading for invoking Section 53A.
8. Examination of possession evidence in cases of part performance.
9. Lack of pleading and evidence for performance under Section 53A.
10. Second defendant's entitlement to defense under Section 53A.
11. Necessity of assignment for claiming benefit under Section 53A.
12. Impact of power of attorney and minor daughter's property on the case.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal against the trial court's decree for rendition of accounts and injunction. The defendants, who did not appear during trial, sought to set aside the ex parte order under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C., which was rejected. The defendants requested a remand to substantiate their contentions, but the plaintiff argued against it due to lack of proper pleadings. The plaintiff's suit alleged misappropriation by the first defendant, who possessed the property under a power of attorney. The first defendant claimed ownership under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, citing agreements for sale and possession by the second defendant.

The court analyzed the applicability of Section 53A, emphasizing the need for written contracts and possession in part performance. The judgment highlighted that the first defendant's possession was through the power of attorney, not the alleged agreements for sale. Lack of pleading regarding performance under Section 53A weakened the defendants' case. The court also examined possession evidence, noting that the first defendant's admission of handing over possession to the second defendant undermined any defense under Section 53A for the first defendant.

Regarding the second defendant, the court found vague assertions on how possession was obtained, with no mention of assignment of agreements from the first defendant. The judgment emphasized that for a valid defense under Section 53A, the transferee must have an agreement in their favor, which was absent in this case. Additionally, the impact of the power of attorney and the minor daughter's property on the case was discussed, highlighting the first defendant's agency role and the legal constraints on selling the minor's property.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal, citing the insufficiency of pleadings and evidence to support invoking Section 53A. The judgment underscored that lack of proper pleadings rendered any remand futile, as evidence could not salvage a case without a legal basis in the pleadings.

---