Supreme Court restores appellate findings, faults High Court for ex parte certiorari
A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Vipul M. Pancholi held that a writ court cannot reweigh evidence-based appellate findings and cannot decide ownership questions without hearing affected parties.
The Supreme Court has set aside a Karnataka High Court order that quashed part of a First Appellate Court judgment in a long-running partition dispute. The High Court had exercised certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 to strike down findings in Paragraph 24 of the appellate judgment, doing so after dispensing with notice to parties whose ownership and possession those findings recorded.
Deciding the appeal on 16 July 2026, a Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi held that the High Court crossed the limited boundaries of certiorari by reweighing evidence-based factual findings, and separately breached natural justice by deciding ex parte. The Court restored the First Appellate Court judgment dated 2 August 2021 in its entirety, while clarifying that it expressed no opinion on the merits.
How the partition dispute reached the Supreme Court
The genesis was O.S. No. 165 of 1999, a suit for partition and separate possession filed before the Civil Judge and JMFC at Kushtagi. The plaintiffs, Veerabasamma and Malakajamma, claimed a two-thirds share in the suit schedule properties, asserting these originally belonged to Basayya and that they remained in joint possession despite mutation in favour of their brother Basalingaiah.
Basalingaiah died in 1983, leaving his daughter Basamma (Defendant No. 1, Appellant No. 1) as sole heir. The plaintiffs alleged Basamma mutated the properties in her name and asserted exclusive ownership by creating third-party interests. Basamma and the subsequent purchasers contested the claim, contending the properties were self-acquired and that the purchasers were bona fide.
The Trial Court dismissed the suit on 20 April 2015, holding the plaintiffs had failed to prove their right and that Defendant No. 1, as owner, could alienate the properties. The First Appellate Court, on 2 August 2021, dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal but recorded in Paragraph 24 that certain sale deeds executed by Basamma were not valid and that she remained owner in possession of several suit items.
Goparappa, Defendant No. 5 and one of the purchasers under a sale deed dated 16 July 1999, challenged only those findings in Paragraph 24 by writ petition. The High Court, on 22 February 2023, allowed the petition and set aside Paragraph 24, confirming the rest of the appellate judgment. Basamma and her son Shivayya (Defendant No. 6) then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing they were not heard.
What the Court held on certiorari
The Court framed two issues: whether a writ of certiorari under Article 226 was maintainable where the subject matter had already been tried in a civil suit, and whether the High Court erred in setting aside factual findings without hearing the appellants.
Reviewing the settled scope of certiorari, the Court relied on the Constitution Bench decisions in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque and Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan, and on Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das. Those authorities establish that a writ court acts in supervisory, not appellate, jurisdiction, and does not review or reweigh evidence. Certiorari corrects errors of jurisdiction or patent illegality, or findings based on no evidence, but not a wrong decision on facts.
Applying these principles, the Court held the High Court “clearly transgressed the limited contours of the certiorari jurisdiction”. The High Court had treated the Paragraph 24 findings as unsupported by pleadings or evidence. But a perusal of the appellate judgment showed the evidence was independently examined, with the findings arrived at after considering pleadings, mutation entries, sale deeds and the parties' conduct regarding possession and ownership.
Since the dispute arose from a civil suit where title, the nature of the properties, possession and validity of alienations were decided upon oral and documentary evidence, the Court found the appellate findings were not returned dehors the record. A competent First Appellate Court's findings could not be said to lack jurisdiction or exceed it, and the High Court could not set them aside under Article 226.
Why the ex parte course failed natural justice
The Court gave a second, independent reason. The Paragraph 24 findings directly affected the ownership, possession and rights of the appellants over the suit properties. Yet the High Court decided the writ petition ex parte after dispensing with notice to them, which the Court said was not a proper course.
The Bench held that any finding on ownership and possession would impact the parties against whom it was returned, and that the least a litigant may expect from a constitutional court is to be heard before being condemned. The course adopted resulted in a clear violation of audi alteram partem.
The Court drew on State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh, the five-Judge Bench in Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV), and Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of M.P. on the prejudice exception to natural justice. On the facts, the Court found prejudice was caused, since interference with the findings entailed adverse civil consequences for the appellants. It held they were not merely proper but necessary parties to effectively adjudicate the writ petition.
Order
The Supreme Court granted leave and allowed the appeal. It set aside the High Court's judgment dated 22 February 2023 and restored the First Appellate Court's judgment dated 2 August 2021 in its entirety.
The Court clarified that nothing in its judgment was an expression of opinion on the merits. It left the parties at liberty to pursue available remedies in accordance with law. Should the respondents choose alternative remedies, they may do so within three months, and limitation would not obstruct adjudication on merits. Pending applications, if any, were disposed of.