DATE: 16.07.2026
COURT: Supreme Court of India
BENCH: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice
Vipul M. Pancholi
FACTS:
The dispute originates
from a suit for partition and separate possession (O.S. No.165 of 1999) filed
by Veerabasamma and Malakajamma (plaintiffs) before the Civil Judge at
Kushtagi, claiming 2/3rd share in the suit schedule properties. According to
the plaintiffs, the properties originally belonged to their father Basayya.
After Basayya’s death, the properties were mutated in the name of his son
Basalingaiah. Upon Basalingaiah’s death in 1983, his daughter Basamma
(defendant no.1, appellant no.1 herein) got the khata mutated in her name and
allegedly began asserting exclusive ownership, selling portions of the
properties to third parties. The plaintiffs claimed they remained in joint
possession and sought partition, contending the properties were
ancestral/family properties.
The Trial Court
dismissed the suit in 2015, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove their
right over the properties and that defendant no.1 had validly alienated them.
The First Appellate Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ appeal but, in Paragraph 24
of its judgment, made specific findings regarding the invalidity of certain
sale deeds executed by Basamma and held that she continued to be the owner in
possession of some properties. One of the purchasers (Goparappa, defendant
no.5) challenged only these observations in Paragraph 24 by filing a writ
petition under Article 226 before the High Court of Karnataka.
ISSUES:
The main issues before
the Supreme Court were: (i) whether a writ petition seeking a writ of
certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution was maintainable to challenge
specific factual findings recorded by the First Appellate Court in a civil suit
for partition that had already been adjudicated by competent civil courts; and
(ii) whether the High Court erred in setting aside the factual findings of the
First Appellate Court in Paragraph 24 without hearing the affected parties (the
present appellants) and without the findings being without jurisdiction or
perverse.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The Supreme Court
allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court dated
22.02.2023, and restored the judgment and order of the First Appellate Court
dated 02.08.2021 in its entirety. The Court held that the High Court exceeded
the limits of its certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 and violated
principles of natural justice by setting aside the findings without affording
an opportunity of hearing to the affected appellants.
The Supreme Court
reiterated the well-settled principles governing the exercise of writ
jurisdiction, particularly the writ of certiorari under Article 226. Relying on
Constitution Bench decisions such as Hari Vishnu Kamath and Syed Yakoob, the
Court held that the High Court, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction,
cannot act as an appellate court, re-appreciate evidence, or interfere with
findings of fact recorded by the subordinate courts unless there is a
jurisdictional error, patent illegality, or the findings are based on no
evidence. In the present case, the observations in Paragraph 24 of the First
Appellate Court’s judgment were made after appreciation of pleadings, evidence,
sale deeds, and mutation entries. These were not rendered without jurisdiction
or in excess of it. Therefore, the High Court transgressed the limited scope of
certiorari jurisdiction by setting aside those factual findings.
The second major
ground was the violation of principles of natural justice. The findings in
Paragraph 24 directly affected the rights, title, ownership, and possession of
the present appellants (Basamma and the subsequent purchaser). Despite this,
the High Court disposed of the writ petition without issuing notice to them and
without hearing them, causing prejudice. The Court emphasized that audi alteram
partem is a fundamental principle, and any order adversely affecting civil
rights without giving an opportunity of hearing is unsustainable. The High
Court’s approach of dispensing with notice to necessary parties was held to be
improper, leading to the setting aside of its judgment and restoration of the
First Appellate Court’s order.
ANALYSIS:
This Supreme Court
judgment serves as a strong reminder of the limited scope of the High Court’s
supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, particularly
when exercising the writ of certiorari. The Court clarified that High Courts
cannot convert writ proceedings into appellate proceedings by re-appreciating
evidence or interfering with factual findings of the First Appellate Court
unless there is a clear jurisdictional error or the findings are perverse or
based on no evidence. By setting aside the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court
protected the sanctity of the civil adjudication process in a long-pending
partition suit and reinforced that factual conclusions reached after
appreciation of oral and documentary evidence by competent civil courts should
not be lightly disturbed in writ jurisdiction. The decision also underscores
the importance of maintaining procedural discipline in property disputes
involving multiple alienations and third-party rights.
The judgment further
strengthens the principles of natural justice by holding that any order
adversely affecting the rights of parties especially findings on ownership and
possession, cannot be passed without granting them an opportunity of hearing.
The Supreme Court rightly frowned upon the High Court’s decision to proceed ex
parte against necessary parties whose interests were directly impacted. This
ruling will have significant implications for civil litigation in India,
cautioning against selective challenges to specific paragraphs of appellate
judgments through writ petitions and emphasizing that parties whose rights are
likely to be prejudiced must be heard. Overall, it strikes a balance between
the need for judicial efficiency and the fundamental requirement of fair
procedure in civil matters.
info@adhwaitha.com