In a significant judgment reinforcing the limits of writ jurisdiction and procedural propriety, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that High Courts exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot act as appellate courts to review factual findings or bypass the fundamental principles of natural justice. A division bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi set aside a Karnataka High Court order that had quashed the factual observations of a civil court without hearing the affected parties. Restoring the judgment of the First Appellate Court in its entirety, the apex court emphasized that procedural fairness is an indispensable pillar of the rule of law.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from a civil suit for partition and separate possession (O.S. No. 165 of 1999) filed before the Civil Judge & JMFC at Kushtagi by Veerabasamma and Malakajamma. The plaintiffs sought a two-thirds share in the properties originally belonging to their late father, Basayya. They asserted that after Basayya’s death, the family property was mutated in the name of their brother, Basalingaiah, but remained in joint family possession. Following Basalingaiah’s demise in 1983, his daughter, Basamma (Defendant No. 1), mutated the properties in her name without the plaintiffs’ consent and began asserting exclusive ownership by selling them to third parties, including Goparappa (Defendant No. 5).
The Trial Court dismissed the suit on April 20, 2015, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to prove their rights over the properties, and observed that Basamma, as the owner, had every right to alienate them. On appeal, the First Appellate Court (Senior Civil Judge, Kushtagi) upheld the dismissal of the partition suit on August 2, 2021.
However, in Paragraph 24 of its judgment, the First Appellate Court entered specific factual findings holding that the sale deeds executed by Basamma to several purchasers (including Goparappa) were invalid. It noted discrepancies in names, fraud, lack of mutation for over 12 years, and declared that Basamma remained the owner in possession of those specific properties.
Aggrieved by these findings in Paragraph 24, Goparappa filed a writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari before the Dharwad Bench of the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court allowed the writ petition on February 22, 2023, setting aside the observations in Paragraph 24. Crucially, the High Court decided the matter ex-parte, dispensing with notice to Basamma and her son Shivayya (the appellants before the Supreme Court), on the ground that the First Appellate Court’s observations were recorded without supporting pleadings, issues, or evidence.
Arguments of the Parties
Before the Supreme Court, the appellants (Basamma and Shivayya) contended that the High Court committed a grave error by deciding the writ petition without affording them an opportunity to be heard. They argued that the High Court had wrongly and without recording any reason dispensed with the service of notice, despite the fact that the challenged findings directly affected their rights, title, and possession of the suit properties.
Conversely, the contesting respondents supported the High Court’s decision, arguing that the First Appellate Court’s adverse findings in Paragraph 24 did not arise from the pleadings or evidence led by the parties during the trial, making them palpably erroneous and liable to be quashed under writ jurisdiction.
The Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court framed two primary issues for consideration: first, whether a writ of certiorari under Article 226 was maintainable to set aside factual findings adjudicated in a civil suit, and second, whether the High Court erred in setting aside those findings without hearing the affected appellants.
Addressing the first issue, the court analyzed the well-settled boundaries of a writ of certiorari. Referencing the Constitution Bench decisions in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque (which relied on T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa) and Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan, the bench reiterated that writ jurisdiction is supervisory and not appellate. The High Court does not review or reweigh evidence to substitute its own views.
Quoting from Hari Vishnu Kamath, the court observed: “The court issuing a writ of certiorari acts in exercise of a supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction. One consequence of this is that the Court will not review findings of fact reached by the inferior court or tribunal, even if they be erroneous.”
It also cited the rule from Syed Yakoob: “An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be.”
The bench further referenced Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das, stating that a writ of certiorari will not lie where the decision of a tribunal or authority is wrong on facts or merits. Upon evaluating the records, the Supreme Court noted that the First Appellate Court had independently appreciated the evidence, mutation entries, sale deeds, and the parties’ conduct before rendering its findings in Paragraph 24. Consequently, the High Court overstepped its jurisdictional limits by overturning those factual findings.
On the second issue, the Supreme Court strongly criticized the High Court for dispensing with notice to the appellants. The bench highlighted that any judicial finding on ownership and possession directly impacts the rights of the parties, making them necessary parties who must be heard.
Invoking the principles of audi alteram partem, the court cited State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh and the five-judge bench decision in Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV), quoting: “The object of observing the principles of natural justice is to ensure that “every person whose rights are going to be affected by the proposed action gets a fair hearing””
Additionally, citing Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of M.P., the court emphasized that procedural fairness lies at the very heart of any civilized legal system. The bench concluded that the High Court’s ex-parte approach resulted in a clear violation of natural justice and caused palpable prejudice to the appellants.
The Decision
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Karnataka High Court’s judgment dated February 22, 2023. It restored the First Appellate Court’s judgment and order dated August 2, 2021, in its entirety.
The court clarified that its judgment does not express any opinion on the merits of the case. It granted the respondents liberty to pursue appropriate alternative legal remedies within three months, directing that statutory limitation periods should not obstruct an adjudication on merits.
Case Details:
Case Title: Basamma & Anr. v. Goparappa and Ors.
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 10183 of 2024)
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
Date: July 16, 2026
