High Court Cannot Convert Certiorari into a Backdoor Appeal or Alter Property Rights Without Hearing Necessary Parties: Supreme Court

Case Name: Basamma & Another v. Goparappa and Others

Date of Judgment: 16 July 2026

Citation: 2026 INSC 712

Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi

Held: The Supreme Court held that a High Court exercising certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot act as an appellate court, reappreciate evidence or disturb factual findings returned by a competent civil court merely because another view is possible. Interference is permissible only in cases involving jurisdictional error, patent illegality, violation of natural justice, perversity or findings based on no evidence. The Court further held that an order affecting a person’s ownership, possession or proprietary rights cannot be passed without impleading and hearing that person, as such parties are necessary for effective adjudication.

Summary: The dispute arose from a suit seeking partition and separate possession of properties allegedly belonging to Basayya. The Trial Court dismissed the suit after holding that the plaintiffs had failed to establish their rights over the properties. The First Appellate Court upheld the dismissal but, in paragraph 24 of its judgment, recorded findings questioning the validity of certain sale deeds and recognised Basamma’s ownership and possession over the properties.

One of the purchasers challenged only these findings before the Karnataka High Court through a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227. The High Court set aside paragraph 24 on the ground that the findings were unsupported by pleadings, issues or evidence. It did so without hearing Basamma and another affected purchaser, even though the order directly concerned their ownership and possession.

The Supreme Court found that the First Appellate Court had considered the pleadings, mutation entries, sale deeds, evidence and conduct of the parties before recording its findings. Therefore, the High Court exceeded the limited supervisory scope of certiorari by reassessing factual conclusions arising from a civil dispute. Certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal or as a mechanism to correct every allegedly erroneous factual determination.

The Court also held that the High Court violated the principle of audi alteram partem. Since its order directly affected the appellants’ ownership, possession and civil rights, they were not merely proper parties but necessary parties who were entitled to be heard before any adverse order was passed.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Karnataka High Court’s judgment and restored the First Appellate Court’s decision in its entirety. It clarified that no opinion had been expressed on the merits and permitted the respondents to pursue any available alternative remedy within three months, without limitation obstructing adjudication on merits.