R.Sanal Kumar vs Sasidharan — 200006/2021

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section se96or41. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED WITH COST. on 30th March 2026.

Case disposed

AS - CIVIL APPEAL

CNR: KLAL030005892021

Filing Number

200246/2021

Filing Date

11-Nov-2021

Registration No

200006/2021

Registration Date

12-Nov-2021

Court

Sub Court Alappuzha

Judge

1-Sub Judge, Alappuzha

Decision Date

30-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED WITH COST.

Last updated 25-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section se96or41

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.R.Sanal Kumar

    Adv. PARAMESWARAN. C

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Sasidharan

  2. 2.Sabu

  3. 3.Pushkaran

  4. 4.Manoharan.S

  5. 5.Salim.M.P

  6. 6.Bineesh Chandran.R

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 30-Mar-2026

    JudgementView PDF

    Court Summary The Subordinate Judge of Alappuzha dismissed the appellants' suit seeking to frame a management scheme for the Paravoor Subramanya Swamy Devaswom (temple), finding the case barred by the principle of *res judicata*. The court held that the identical question regarding whether the temple is a private family trust or a public trust was already conclusively decided in earlier proceedings (AS.90/2005) where the same parties were involved, and therefore the present suit cannot be relitigated. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 30-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Sub Judge, Alappuzha

  4. 12-Mar-2026

    For Hearing

    Sub Judge, Alappuzha

  5. 05-Mar-2026

    For Hearing

    Sub Judge, Alappuzha

  6. 04-Mar-2026

    For Hearing

    Sub Judge, Alappuzha

  7. 19-Feb-2026

    Listed to

    Sub Judge, Alappuzha

  8. 05-Feb-2026

    For Hearing

    Sub Judge, Alappuzha

  9. 29-Jan-2026

    For Hearing

    Sub Judge, Alappuzha

  10. 24-Jan-2026

    For Hearing

    Sub Judge, Alappuzha

  11. 22-Jan-2026

    For Hearing

    Sub Judge, Alappuzha

  12. 16-Jan-2026

    For Hearing

    Sub Judge, Alappuzha

  13. 15-Jan-2026

    Prays time

    Sub Judge, Alappuzha

  14. 12-Jan-2026

    For Hearing

    Sub Judge, Alappuzha

  15. 08-Jan-2026

    For Hearing

    Sub Judge, Alappuzha

  16. 22-Nov-2025

    Listed to

    Sub Judge, Alappuzha

  17. 06-Nov-2025

    For Hearing

    Sub Judge, Alappuzha

  18. 30-Oct-2025

    For Hearing

    Sub Judge, Alappuzha

  19. 25-Oct-2025

    For Hearing

    Sub Judge, Alappuzha

  20. 10-Oct-2025

    For Hearing

    Sub Judge, Alappuzha

  21. 29-Sep-2025

    No Further Time

    Sub Judge, Alappuzha

  22. 27-Sep-2025

    For Hearing

    Sub Judge, Alappuzha

  23. 25-Sep-2025

    call on

    Sub Judge, Alappuzha

  24. 18-Sep-2025

    For further hearing

    Sub Judge, Alappuzha

  25. 15-Sep-2025

    For Hearing

    Sub Judge, Alappuzha

  26. 04-Jul-2025

    Listed to

    Sub Judge, Alappuzha

  27. 10-Jun-2025

    For Admission

    Sub Judge, Alappuzha

  28. 10-Jun-2025

    Restored

    Sub Judge, Alappuzha

  29. 10-Jun-2025

    call on

    Sub Judge, Alappuzha

  30. 20-Sep-2022

    JudgementView PDF

  31. 20-Sep-2022

    Disposed

    Sub Judge, Alappuzha

  32. 17-Sep-2022

    Listed to

    Sub Judge, Alappuzha

  33. 16-Jul-2022

    Listed to

    Sub Judge, Alappuzha

  34. 27-May-2022

    Issue notice

    Sub Judge, Alappuzha

  35. 06-Apr-2022

    Judge on leave / duty

    Sub Judge, Alappuzha

  36. 15-Feb-2022

    For Hearing

    Sub Judge, Alappuzha

  37. 01-Dec-2021

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  38. 11-Nov-2021

    Case filed

    Registration No. 200006/2021

casestatus.in Summary

Court Summary The Subordinate Judge of Alappuzha dismissed the appellants' suit seeking to frame a management scheme for the Paravoor Subramanya Swamy Devaswom (temple), finding the case barred by the principle of *res judicata*. The court held that the identical question regarding whether the temple is a private family trust or a public trust was already conclusively decided in earlier proceedings (AS.90/2005) where the same parties were involved, and therefore the present suit cannot be relitigated. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case