High Court Under Article 226 Cannot Act As Court Of Appeal Over Findings Of Facts Recorded By Subordinate Courts: Supreme Court

The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi held, "At the outset, it would be apposite to briefly recapitulate the settled principles of law governing the exercise of extraordinary and certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is trite law that while exercising such jurisdiction, the High Court does not act as a Court of appeal over findings, more so, of facts recorded by the subordinate Courts or Tribunals. 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."

“The findings recorded in Paragraph 24 directly affected the ownership, possession and rights of the appellants over the suit schedule properties. Despite this, the High Court proceeded to decide the writ petition, ex parte, after dispensing with service of notice to the present appellants, which, in our considered opinion, was definitely not a correct or proper course to adopt. Any finding on ownership and possession by the Court would, obviously, directly impact the parties against whom these findings have been returned. In such a circumstance, the least expectation that a litigant is entitled to have from a Court, much less a constitutional Court, is that they would be heard before being condemned. For whatever reason, the High Court in the present case thought it not to be so. As such, despite it being a general principle of law, we may underscore the importance of a party being heard", it added.

Factual Background

The case pertained to a suit for partition and separate possession instituted before the Court of Civil Judge & JMFC at Kushtagi by the plaintiffs, Veerabasamma (predecessor-in-interest of the second respondent) and Malakajamma (predecessor-in-interest of Respondents 11 to 14). The plaintiffs sought relief of partition and separate possession of 2/3rd share in the suit schedule properties. According to the plaintiffs, the suit properties originally belonged to one Basayya. He had a son, namely Basalingaiah, and the plaintiffs were Basayya’s daughters and sisters of Basalingaiah. Upon the demise of Basayya, the khata in respect of the suit properties was mutated in the name of Basalingaiah, being the male descendant in the family. However, despite the mutation, the plaintiffs claimed that they continued to remain in joint possession.

It was further the case of the plaintiffs that Basalingaiah died in the year 1983, leaving behind the first defendant (first appellant), Basamma (daughter), as his sole heir. Thereafter, the defendant allegedly got khata of the suit properties mutated in her name without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiffs and subsequently began asserting exclusive ownership over the suit schedule properties by creating third-party interests. Aggrieved thereby, the suit for partition and separate possession came to be instituted, and the Trial Court dismissed the same. In appeal, the First Appellate Court, in paragraph 24, found that the sale deeds executed by the first defendant in favour of the other contesting defendants (purchasers) were not valid and recorded that the first defendant (Basamma) was the owner in possession of such suit schedule properties.

This limited finding returned by the First Appellate Court came to be challenged before the High Court by Goparappa, fifth defendant (first respondent), being one of the purchasers claiming under the sale deed, by way of a writ petition, which was allowed. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants, the first defendant (Basamma/owner) and the sixth defendant (subsequent purchaser/son of Basamma), approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench held that the High Court clearly transgressed the limited contours of the certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution while setting aside the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court. The Bench noted that the High Court, in the impugned order, took the view that the findings returned by the First Appellate Court were unsupported by pleadings or evidence on record. On a perusal of the judgment of the First Appellate Court, the Bench found that the evidence produced during the trial was independently examined and appreciated by them. It was only after perusing the pleadings, mutation entries, sale deeds and the conduct of the parties regarding possession and ownership of the suit schedule properties that the findings impugned before the High Court came to be returned.

“The observations made in Paragraph 24 were not returned dehors the evidence placed on record or in the absence thereof but were arrived at upon consideration of evidence adduced by the parties during the course of trial. Therefore, once the First Appellate Court, being fully competent to adjudicate the appeal, had returned findings after due consideration of the evidence on record, it cannot be said that such findings were tendered without jurisdiction or in excess of it. Thus, in our considered opinion, the High Court, while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, could not have set aside the findings returned in Paragraph 24”, it added.

Thus, holding that prejudice was caused to the appellants as they were not merely proper parties but necessary ones to effectively adjudicate the writ petition, the Bench set aside the judgment of the High Court while restoring the judgment of the First Appellate Court in its entirety. “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”, the Bench held while allowing the appeal.

Cause Title: Basamma & Anr. v. Goparappa and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 712)

Click here to read/download Judgment