Certiorari Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used To Reappreciate Findings of Fact: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has firmly re-established the boundaries of writ jurisdiction, ruling that High Courts cannot use Article 226 to act as appellate bodies or reweigh evidence already adjudicated by civil courts. In a decisive rebuke of procedural shortcuts, the Court held that bypassing necessary parties and failing to adhere to the principles of natural justice renders such judicial interventions constitutionally unsustainable.

In a judgment delivered by a bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, the Apex Court scrutinized the High Court of Karnataka's decision to quash specific factual findings regarding property ownership and possession. The Bench emphasized that the writ of certiorari is a supervisory tool, not an invitation to conduct a second trial on facts.

Limits of Certiorari Jurisdiction Under Article 226

The Supreme Court underscored the settled legal position that while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court does not sit as a Court of appeal over findings of fact recorded by subordinate courts. It noted that such jurisdiction is reserved for correcting errors of law, jurisdictional overreach, or patent illegalities.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "...the High Court does not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the subordinate Courts is purported to be based. Such a writ jurisdiction may be invoked in cases where there is an error of law, jurisdictional error, or patent illegality... 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. This is on the principle that a court which has jurisdiction over a subject-matter has jurisdiction to decide wrong as well as right..."

Referring to the precedent in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque and Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan ( "1963 SCC OnLine SC 24": 1963 CaseBase(SC) 79), the Bench reiterated that a finding of fact, even if grave, cannot be corrected via a writ unless it is based on 'no evidence' or is purely perverse.

Violation of Natural Justice and Audi Alteram Partem

A critical aspect of the ruling was the High Court's failure to hear the appellants before setting aside findings that directly impacted their rights. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had dispensed with service of notice to the appellants, violating the foundational doctrine of audi alteram partem.

Invoking the principles laid down in State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh ( "(2021) 19 SCC 706": 2020 CaseBase(SC) 728), Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV), and Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of M.P. ( "(2025) 7 SCC 545.": 2025 CaseBase(SC) 331), the Court held that the non-observance of natural justice is itself a prejudice. The Court noted that since the findings in Paragraph 24 of the First Appellate Court's judgment pertained to the ownership and possession rights of the appellants, they were not just proper parties but necessary ones.

Directions Issued by the Court

The Court has the following directions:

“ the impugned judgment and order dated 22.02.2023 passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench is set aside. The judgment and order dated 02.08.2021, passed by the First Appellate Court, is restored in its entirety. It must be noted that nothing contained in the present judgment shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Parties are at liberty to espouse remedies, as may be available, in accordance with law, if so advised. Should the respondents choose to pursue such alternative remedies, they may do so within three months from today. Limitation should not come in the way of adjudication on merits.”

Key Takeaways:

Supervisory Not Appellate Role

High Courts must refrain from reappreciating evidence in writ petitions if the lower court acted within its jurisdiction and based its findings on available evidence.

Prejudice in Natural Justice

Denial of a hearing to a necessary party whose civil rights are at stake constitutes inherent prejudice, and no independent proof of prejudice is required to set aside such an order.

Finality of Civil Adjudication

Findings of fact rendered by a First Appellate Court after examining mutation entries and sale deeds are considered final and cannot be demolished simply because another view is possible.

Ratio Decidendi:

The High Court, while exercising certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226, cannot act as an appellate court to review or reweigh findings of fact based on evidence. Furthermore, any judicial order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice (audi alteram partem) against a necessary party is unsustainable in law, as the denial of a fair hearing constitutes a per se prejudice.

Background:

The litigation began with a partition suit (O.S. No.165 of 1999) filed by the sisters of one Basalingaiah, claiming a 2/3rd share in properties they alleged were ancestral. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding the properties were self-acquired by Basamma (the daughter). While the First Appellate Court dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal, it recorded specific findings in Paragraph 24 of its judgment, declaring certain sale deeds executed by Basamma as invalid and stating she remained the owner in possession.

One of the purchasers, Goparappa (Respondent No.1), challenged these specific observations before the High Court via a writ petition. The High Court allowed the petition ex-parte and quashed Paragraph 24. The Supreme Court, relying on the standards of judicial review in Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das ( "(2023) 16 SCC 462": 2023 CaseBase(SC) 1076), found the High Court had overstepped. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the First Appellate Court's judgment in its entirety.

Case Details:
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.10183 of 2024)
NeutralCitation: 2026 INSC 712
Case Title: BASAMMA & ANR. Versus GOPARAPPA AND ORS.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(SC) 663