Certiorari Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used to Reappreciate Evidence or Deny Hearing

Case Snapshot

• Case Name: Basamma & Anr. v. Goparappa and Ors.

• Citation: 2026 INSC 712

• Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

• Date of Judgment: July 16, 2026

• Area of Law: Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Certiorari Jurisdiction, Natural Justice

Judgment in Brief

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's judgment, which had interfered with findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court in a partition suit. The Court held that the High Court, while exercising certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot act as an appellate court or reappreciate evidence. The findings of the First Appellate Court were based on pleadings and evidence on record, and there was no jurisdictional error or patent illegality warranting interference. Additionally, the High Court violated the principles of natural justice by disposing of the writ petition ex parte without hearing the parties whose rights were directly affected by the findings. The judgment underscores the limited scope of certiorari jurisdiction and the fundamental importance of audi alteram partem.

Relevant Facts

• A suit for partition and separate possession was filed by the plaintiffs (sisters of Basalingaiah) claiming 2/3rd share in the suit properties.

• The properties originally belonged to Basayya, who had a son (Basalingaiah) and daughters (the plaintiffs).

• Upon Basalingaiah's death, his daughter (Basamma, appellant No. 1) mutated the properties in her name and alienated them to third parties.

• The Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove their right over the properties and

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.