Supreme Court Restores First Appellate Court's Judgment in Partition Suit, High Court's Certiorari Jurisdiction Challenged and Overturned by Supreme Court
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has overturned the Karnataka High Court's decision that had annulled the findings of the First Appellate Court in a contentious property dispute. The case, titled Basamma v. Goparappa, revolved around a suit for partition and separate possession of family properties, originally instituted by the plaintiffs Veerabasamma and Malakajamma, claiming a 2/3rd share in the properties belonging to their predecessor, Basayya.
The trial court had initially dismissed the plaintiffs' suit, asserting that the plaintiffs failed to prove their rights over the properties and upheld the ownership rights of Basamma, the sole heir of Basalingaiah. The First Appellate Court later upheld the trial court's findings but invalidated certain sale deeds executed by Basamma, affirming her continued ownership over the disputed properties.
Discontent with the First Appellate Court's observations, Goparappa, a purchaser under one of the contested sale deeds, approached the High Court seeking a writ of certiorari to set aside the findings of the First Appellate Court. The High Court, without serving notice to the appellants Basamma and her son Shivayya, allowed the writ petition, quashing the findings of the First Appellate Court, prompting Basamma to challenge the decision in the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court, adjudicating the appeal, emphasized the limited scope of certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It reiterated that such jurisdiction is not appellate but supervisory, intended to correct jurisdictional errors or patent illegality, not to re-evaluate evidence or findings of fact. The Court found that the High Court had transgressed these boundaries by setting aside findings based on evidence duly considered by the First Appellate Court.
Moreover, the Supreme Court noted the High Court's failure to adhere to principles of natural justice, particularly the doctrine of audi alteram partem, by deciding the matter without hearing the appellants whose rights were directly affected. The Court highlighted the inherent prejudice caused by such procedural impropriety.
Consequently, the Supreme Court restored the First Appellate Court's judgment in its entirety, allowing Basamma and Shivayya's appeal, and underscored that parties are free to pursue alternative remedies as per law. The decision reinforces the sanctity of procedural fairness and the circumscribed role of certiorari jurisdiction in judicial review.
Bottom Line:
High Court cannot exercise certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 to set aside findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court, unless there is a jurisdictional error or patent illegality. Violation of audi alteram partem principle amounts to breach of natural justice when it causes prejudice to the affected party.
Statutory provision(s): Article 226 of the Constitution of India
