Basamma & Anr. v. Goparappa and Ors., 2026

The dispute arose out of a civil suit for partition.

The plaintiffs instituted a suit seeking partition and separate possession of the suit properties.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit after holding that the plaintiffs failed to establish their rights over the properties.

The plaintiffs preferred a First Appeal before the First Appellate Court.

The First Appellate Court upheld the dismissal of the partition suit.

However, in Paragraph 24 of its judgment, the First Appellate Court recorded findings regarding the genuineness of certain sale deeds after considering the evidence on record.

A purchaser, aggrieved only by the observations in Paragraph 24, filed a writ petition under Article 226 before the Karnataka High Court.

The High Court set aside the findings on the ground that they were unsupported by pleadings.

The High Court passed the order without issuing notice to Defendant Nos. 1 and 6, whose rights were directly affected.

Aggrieved by the High Court's interference, the affected parties approached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal.

The Court held that the High Court exceeded the limits of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

It observed that the jurisdiction under a Writ of Certiorari is supervisory and not appellate.

The Court reiterated that the High Court cannot review or reweigh evidence merely because another view is possible.

It clarified that Certiorari is available only to correct jurisdictional errors, errors of law, or patent illegality.

The Court found that the First Appellate Court had considered the pleadings and evidence before recording its findings in Paragraph 24.

It held that the findings were neither without jurisdiction nor in excess of jurisdiction.

The Court observed that the High Court improperly reappreciated the evidence and substituted its own conclusions.

The Court further held that the High Court violated the principles of Natural Justice by deciding the writ petition without hearing Defendant Nos. 1 and 6, whose rights were directly affected.

Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the Karnataka High Court's judgment.

The judgment of the First Appellate Court was restored.

The judgment reaffirms the distinction between Supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 226 and Appellate Jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court emphasized that Writ Courts are not forums for reconsidering factual findings based on evidence.

The decision strengthens the doctrine that Certiorari is confined to correcting jurisdictional defects rather than correcting factual errors.

By refusing to permit reappreciation of evidence, the Court preserved the finality of factual findings recorded by competent appellate courts.

The judgment reinforces judicial discipline by preventing High Courts from exercising appellate powers under the guise of writ jurisdiction.

The Court also reaffirmed the importance of the principle of Audi Alteram Partem, holding that no adverse order should be passed without hearing affected parties.

The ruling serves as an important precedent on the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226.

The judgment promotes certainty in civil litigation by ensuring that factual determinations made by subordinate courts are not lightly interfered with in writ proceedings.