High Court cannot set aside findings of fact by exercising certiorari jurisdiction without hearing affected parties.

The case originated from a suit for partition (O.S. No. 165/1999) filed by the sisters of one Basalingaiah against his daughter, Basamma (Appellant No. 1).

The Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding the properties were self-acquired by Basamma.

On appeal, the First Appellate Court confirmed the dismissal but recorded specific findings in Paragraph 24, stating that certain sale deeds executed by Basamma to third-party purchasers (Respondents) were invalid due to fraud and expiration of time, and that Basamma remained the owner in possession.

Respondent No. 1 (a purchaser) challenged these specific findings via a writ of certiorari under Article 226/227.

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the writ petition ex-parte, setting aside the findings in Paragraph 24 without serving notice to the Appellants.

The Court relied on the Constitution Bench decisions in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque and Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan, which established that a writ of certiorari is supervisory, not appellate; it can correct jurisdictional errors or patent illegalities but cannot be used to re-appreciate evidence or disturb findings of fact unless based on "no evidence."

It further applied the doctrine of audi alteram partem as emphasized in State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh and Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of M.P., which mandates that no party should be adversely affected by a judicial order without a fair hearing.

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court transgressed its limited certiorari jurisdiction by interfering with findings of fact derived from the First Appellate Court’s independent appreciation of evidence, such as mutation entries and sale deeds.

The Court noted that since the First Appellate Court was competent to adjudicate the civil appeal, its findings were not "without jurisdiction".

The Supreme Court found a gross violation of natural justice, as the High Court dispensed with notice to the Appellants despite the fact that the findings directly concerned their ownership and possession rights.

The Court concluded that the ex-parte setting aside of these findings caused clear legal prejudice, as the Appellants were necessary parties to the adjudication.

The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment dated 22.02.2023. It restored the First Appellate Court’s judgment dated 02.08.2021 in its entirety. Liberty was granted to the Respondents to pursue alternative legal remedies within three months.