The court emphasized the necessity of procedural fairness in appellate proceedings, ruling that irregularities void a judgment and necessitate remand for retrial without merits adjudication.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK S.KINAGI, J.

1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 17.01.2013 passed in R.A.No.59 of 2008 by the learned Additional District Judge, Mandya.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellants were the defendant Nos.2 and 3, respondent No.1 was the plaintiff, and respondent No.2 was defendant No.1.

3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

4. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for declaration of title and he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and consequently for cancellation of the registered sale deeds dated 14.07.1983 and 28.03.1989 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of his father i.e., defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 executed a settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff on 28.03.1977. The plaintiff was a minor as of the date of execution of a settlement deed, by virtue of a settlement deed, the plaintiff became the absolute owner in possession of the suit properties. Defendant No.1 executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 dated 14.07.1983 in respect of item No.2 of the suit schedule properties. Another registered sale deed dated 28.03.1989 was executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3, in respect of suit item No. 1 of the suit schedule property. Defendant No.1 has unilaterally cancelled the settlement deed by executing the cancellation deed dated 07.03.1983, and the same is illegal. The sale deeds executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 are void. Hence, on these grounds, prays to decree the suit.

5. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 filed a written statement contending that defendant No.1 was the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties. He sold item Nos.2 and 3 of the suit schedule property in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 under the different registered sale deeds. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 became the absolute owners of the said suit schedule properties by virtue of the registered sale deeds and they were put in possession of the suit schedule properties i.e., item Nos. 1 and 2. The plaintiff has no right, title or interest over the suit schedule properties. It is contended that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. There is no cause of action to file a suit for declaration of title and for cancellation of the registered sale deeds. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the suit against defendant Nos.2 and 3.

6. The summons was served on defendant No.1. Despite service of summons, defendant No.1 remained unrepresented and was placed ex parte.

7. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues.

1) Whether the plaintiff proves that due execution of settlement deed dated 28.03.1977 by the first defendant?

2) Whether the plaintiff proves that cancellation of the settlement deed is invalid?

3) Whether the sale deeds in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 are liable to be cancelled?

4) Do the defendants prove that they have spent Rs.25,000/- and Rs.10,000/- to improve the schedule properties?

5) Whether the suit is barred by time?

6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration and possession?

7) What decree or order?

8. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW.1 and marked 2 documents as Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. In rebuttal, defendant Nos.3 and defendant No. 2 were examined as DW1 and DW2 respectively, and marked 10 documents as Ex