Basamma & Anr. v. Goparappa & Ors – Citation: 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1342: Court: Supreme Court of India; Coram: Sanjay Karol & Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ; Date: 16 July 2026
Brief Facts: The dispute arose from a partition suit concerning agricultural properties. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, and the First Appellate Court also dismissed the appeal but made certain findings regarding ownership and validity of sale deeds in paragraph 24. A purchaser challenged those findings before the High Court under Articles 226/227. The High Court set aside paragraph 24 without hearing Basamma and another appellant whose property rights were directly affected.
Main Issues: Whether the High Court could, in certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226, interfere with factual findings of the First Appellate Court without hearing parties whose rights were directly affected.
Ratio Decidendi: Certiorari is supervisory, not appellate, and cannot be used to re-appreciate evidence or substitute findings of fact merely because another view is possible. Interference is permissible only for jurisdictional error, patent illegality, or findings based on no evidence/perversity. Further, the audi alteram partem rule requires that persons whose rights may be adversely affected must be heard.
Order: The Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment dated 22.02.2023 and restored the First Appellate Court’s judgment dated 02.08.2021 in its entirety. The parties were left free to pursue other remedies available in law.
Key Points or Understanding: Article 226 certiorari jurisdiction cannot be converted into an appellate jurisdiction over factual findings, and no adverse finding affecting a party’s property rights should be made without giving that party a fair opportunity of hearing.
Courtesy:BJA
