Kerala High Court
The Attukal Bhagavathi Temple Trust vs T.G. Ramachandran Pillai on 23 January, 2026
1
C.R.P. NO.228 OF 2025
2026:KER:5950
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 3RD MAGHA, 1947
C.R.P. NO.228 OF 2025
(AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08.07.2025 IN IA 15/2023 IN
OS NO.1 OF 1979 OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT/
RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM)
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS:
1 THE ATTUKAL BHAGAVATHI TEMPLE TRUST
ATTUKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 009
2 ATTUKAL BHAGAVATHI TEMPLE TRUST,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
AGED 69 YEARS,
SARAT KUMAR, S/O. KARUNAKARAN NAIR, ATTUKAL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 009
BY ADVS.
SRI.D.KISHORE
SMT.MEERA GOPINATH
SRI.R.MURALEEKRISHNAN (MALAKKARA)
SHRI.ANANT KISHORE
2
C.R.P. NO.228 OF 2025
2026:KER:5950
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/THIRD PARTY:
T.G. RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI, S/O. GOPALA PILLAI, KAIRALI,
T.C. 22/906, ARA-58, ATTUKAL, MANACAUD P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 009
BY ADVS.
SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN
SRI.M.KIRANLAL
SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA)
SRI.T.S.SARATH
SHRI.SAMEER M NAIR
SMT.SAILAKSHMI MENON
SHRI.RAVISANKAR C.R.
SMT.JHANCY P. GEORGE
SHRI.JOSEPH T. KOOTTAKKARA
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION, HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.7.2025, WAS RESERVED ON 12.12.2025, AND THE COURT ON 23.01.2026
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
C.R.P. NO.228 OF 2025
2026:KER:5950
ORDER
(Dated: 23rd January, 2026) This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/ the Attukal Bhagavathi Temple Trust (herein referred to as 'petitioner Trust'), filed this petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for setting aside the order passed by the Additional District Judge-I, Thiruvananthapuram, (hereinafter referred to as 'the District Judge') in I.A.No.15 of 2023 in O.S.No.1 of 1979 dated 08.07.2025.
2. Heard the arguments of Sri.D. Koshore, learned counsel for the petitioners, as well as Sri.Manu Ramachandran, learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The case of the petitioners is that the 1st respondent filed I.A.No.15 of 2023, seeking a declaration that the decision ren- dered by the petitioners dated 30.10.2022, rejecting the membership as null and void and directing the petitioners to include his name in the roll of trust members of the petitioners' Trust, or alternatively to 4 C.R.P. NO.228 OF 2025 2026:KER:5950 declare the respondent as a Trust Member. The petitioners herein are referred to as respondents, and the respondents referred to as pe- titioners herein for the convenience of the ranks of the parties before the District Judge.
4. The case of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent, the Attukal Bhagavathi Temple Trust, is a public religious trust ad- ministered under the scheme formulated by the District Court in O.S. No.1 of 1979, a suit was filed under Section 92 of C.P.C. Pur- suant to the decree dated 12.01.1979, a 'Scheme' was implemented for the administration of the Trust (hereinafter referred to as 'the Scheme'). The Scheme remains in force subject to certain amend- ments duly approved by the District Court.
5. Further case of the petitioner before the District Judge is that, as per Clause 5(e) of the Trust Board, it consists of 117 members of Nairs of Attukal Vattam, and Clause 8 of the Scheme says that the eldest member aged 30 years or above of each Nair family within Attukal Vattam, who is a permanent resident thereof, 5 C.R.P. NO.228 OF 2025 2026:KER:5950 is eligible for membership in the Board of Trust. The Scheme further specifies disqualifications applicable to the Trust Board Members. Additionally, the Scheme provides for an Administrative Committee comprising 28 members. It mandates that, once in every 3 years, the list of then-serving Board Members shall be published in the official Gazette. Furthermore, as per Clause 9, the Trust possesses ample authority to remove the members and induct new members into the Trust.
6. The petitioner (the respondent herein), along with 16 others, has filed a suit under Section 92 of the C.P.C., before the District Judge, claiming membership in the Trust. In O.P. (Trust) No. 298 of 2016, a leave was granted; subsequently, it was chal- lenged before the High Court in a revision by filing C.R.P. No.378 of 2017. The High Court set aside the order of granting leave by order dated 28.02.2020 and directed the respondent/petitioner to ap- proach the District Court in O.S.No.1 of 1979. Thereafter, the re- spondent herein, along with 20 others, filed separate applications 6 C.R.P. NO.228 OF 2025 2026:KER:5950 before the District Judge in O.S.No.1 of 1979, where the present re- spondent filed I.A.No.6 of 2020, seeking an order directing the pre- sent petitioner Trust to include his name in the rolls of Trust Mem- bers or declare him to be a Trust Member. By order dated 12.11.2020, the District Judge disposed of I.A. No.6 of 2020, direct- ing the Trust to consider the request made by the petitioner. Accord- ingly, the petitioner Trust rejected the application filed by the re- spondent herein; hence, the respondent herein filed I.A.No.15 of 2023 before the Trial Court. By taking various contentions, the Trial Court, after calling the objections, allowed the application filed by the respondent by impugned order dated 8.7.2025. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner Trust filed this revision petition before this Court.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously con- tended that the order under challenge is illegal, hence liable to be set aside. The Trial Court miserably failed to appreciate the provisions of Ext.A1 - schemes and byelaws, which were approved by the 7 C.R.P. NO.228 OF 2025 2026:KER:5950 court in O.S.No.1 of 1979. The Trial Court's approach and a mis- taken assumption that all persons belonging to the Nair community, who are 30 years old, are permanently residing in Aattukal Vattam, are eligible for membership in the Trust, as per Clause 8 of the byelaw scheme. It is pertinent to note that the list of families who are permanently residing is appended in Appendix-1 of Ext.A1. There are 89 families in Appendix-1 to the scheme, and there are 28 individuals in Appendix-2 to the scheme. Clause 8 of the scheme evidences that members of the Trust could be a person who is a per- manent resident of Aattukal Vattam, or they own a permanent resi- dence. Clause 8 denotes permanent residence, which is listed in Ap- pendix-1, comprising 89 families only.
8. Learned counsel further contended that the trial court ought to have found, it had 14(d) of the schemes, that after the death of all the individuals in Appendix-2. Appendix-2 would be rendered as Otiose and further stipulated that 28 members in the managing committee shall be elected from the Trust Board. Thus, after the 8 C.R.P. NO.228 OF 2025 2026:KER:5950 death of the individuals mentioned in Appendix-2, the legal heirs are entitled to be inducted as Trust Members as per clause 9 of the amended byelaws.
9. It is further contended that the Trial Court ought to have found that membership in the Trust, having a strength of 117, can be constituted only from the representative or nominees of 89 families mentioned in Appendix-1 and from 28 individuals in Ap- pendix-2 or their legal heirs. This fundamental aspect regarding the Ext.A1 scheme, approved by the District Court, and the byelaws are amended from time to time.
10. It is further contended that the trial court committed an error in holding that any person who belongs to the Nair commu- nity who has attained 30 years of age and is a permanent resident of Aattukal Vattam, can be inducted as a member of the Trust, having a strength of 117 members. Even if there are vacancies on the Trust Board, the same can be filled up only in the manner prescribed by Ext.A1 scheme and byelaws. This cardinal aspect was omitted by 9 C.R.P. NO.228 OF 2025 2026:KER:5950 the Trial Court, and it held that the order dated 12.11.2020 in I.A.No.6 of 2020 and connected cases is not binding on the respond- ent. In fact, all applications were filed by different petitioners claim- ing membership in the trust. The District Court specifically found that the administration of the trust is vested with the families and persons in Appendix-1 and 2. Merely by reason of the fact that a permanent residency is defined, such residents cannot automatically claim the right to become trustees. It is further found that the per- manently residing Nair families of Aattukal Vattam or the benefi- ciaries of the Trust, but so far as the administration is vested with certain families and persons named in the scheme, nobody else can claim the right to be a member of the Trust Board. This finding of the court dated 12.11.2020 is binding on the respondent as well, since he was also a party to the order passed in I.A.No.6 of 2020, and the said order and finding are binding on the respondent.
11. It is further contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Y.B. Patil and Others v. Y.L. Patil (1977 KHC 727) held 10 C.R.P. NO.228 OF 2025 2026:KER:5950 that the principles of res judicata can be invoked not only in separate subsequent proceedings, but they also get attracted in subsequent stages of the same proceedings. And once an order made in the course of a proceeding becomes final, it would be binding at the subsequent stage of that proceeding. The respondent has not chal- lenged the findings of the court in its order dated 12.11.2020, passed in I.A.No.6 of 2020, and connected I.As. Therefore, the findings would operate as a bar in subsequent proceedings which hit by prin- ciples of res judicata. It is further contended that the Trial Court ought to have found the order dated 12.11.2020, passed in I.A.No.6 of 2020, only directed the petitioners herein to consider the request for membership in the Trust. There was no positive direction to grant membership to the respondent. On the other hand, the order specifically clarified that requests for membership by an eligible person deserve consideration and appropriate decisions by the board. In the above circumstances, the revision petitioners have taken a decision on 30.10.2022, declining the request, which was 11 C.R.P. NO.228 OF 2025 2026:KER:5950 communicated to the respondent on 27.11.2022.
12. It is further contended that the finding of the Trial Court is erroneous, that the number of members in the Trust Board is not confined to 117 as per Clause 5(e) of the scheme, and the said figure did not appear in the original scheme. But it was introduced through an amendment. It is to be noted that once the scheme is amended and approved, the amended scheme would be operative, and the original scheme would be merged with the amended one. Thus, the finding of the Trial Court that the number of members in the Trust Board can be more than 117, and the original scheme is to be looked into, despite being amended, is illegal. The Trial Court erred in finding that Clause No.8 facilitates the inclusion of addi- tional members in the Board. There is absolutely no discussion or evidence to arrive at such a conclusion. The Trial Court cannot sit in judgment over the scheme and byelaws approved by the court in the suit. It is further contended that the scheme of the Trust does not stipulate that in order to be eligible for membership in the Trust, a 12 C.R.P. NO.228 OF 2025 2026:KER:5950 person must belong to the family enumerated in Appendix-1 or through a person named in Appendix-2, and there need not be any specific recitals to that effect. In Clause No.8, it is stipulated that persons who are 'permanent residents' of Aattukal Vattam are eligi- ble for membership. However, the list of families having permanent residence is specifically mentioned in Appendix-1. Thus, only a representative or nominee of 89 families mentioned in Appendix-1, and who qualify for the other criteria as per the scheme and byelaw alone, can be a member of the Trust Board. Similarly, 28 individuals mentioned in Appendix-2 were the members of the Trust at the time of formation of the scheme as per Clause 8(b) of the scheme.
13. It is further contended that, as per Clause 14(d), after the death of 28 individuals, the Appendix-2 would become Otiose, which clearly reveals that after the death of 28 persons in Appendix- 2, no outsiders can be replaced in Appendix-2; only the legal heirs of the 28 members can become trust members, as per Clause 9 of the byelaw, the same was not properly appreciated by the Trial 13 C.R.P. NO.228 OF 2025 2026:KER:5950 Court.
14. It is further contended that the Trial Court erred in its findings that the respondent has been residing within the limits of 'AattukalVattam' as per Ext.A8 series letters. Even assuming that (not admitted) the respondent was residing within Aattukal Vattam, is not eligible to be a member of the Trust by virtue of the provisions as per the scheme and byelaws.
15. It is further contended that the Trial Court ought to have found that the respondent is not a permanent resident of Aat- tukal Vattam, moreover, he is residing in the 'Kairali House'. The respondent married from 'Keezhe Mynadu Veedu', which is a fam- ily mentioned as Serial No.70 in Appendix - 1. The father-in-law of the respondent, Late P.K.K. Nair, was a trustee. After his death, Padmakumari Amma, the widow of Late P.K.K. Nair, has the mem- bership of the Trust. Due to reasons better known to her, she with- drew her membership and nominated her son, K.Nandakumar, who is now a Trustee of the Trust Board. The respondent is not residing 14 C.R.P. NO.228 OF 2025 2026:KER:5950 in 'Keezhe Mynadu Veedu', and accordingly, he is not qualified in terms of Clause 5(d) of the Scheme. The respondent ought to have resided in Keezhe Mynadu Veedu to claim the benefit of Clause 5(d). All the more, the members of the family have already been included in the Trust Board; hence, the respondent cannot claim to be inducted as a Trustee/a second member from the very same fam- ily.
16. It is further contended that the Trial court erred in finding that the minutes of the meeting of the Trust Board dated 30.10.2022 do not disclose any specific ground for disqualification for rejecting the application. The decision dated 30.10.2022 gives sufficient reasons for rejection of the application, as reliance has been placed on Clause 9 of the Scheme and Rule 6 of the byelaws. Moreover, the committee has already considered the fact that the number of memberships cannot exceed 117, and if the application of the respondent is allowed, the same would lead to a situation 15 C.R.P. NO.228 OF 2025 2026:KER:5950 where the number of members of the Trust Board should be en- hanced. Accordingly, the findings that the reasons mentioned in the decision dated 30.10.2022 does not constitute a valid ground for re- jection, is illegal.
17. It is further contended that the trial court did not con- sider the eligibility of the respondent to be a member of the Trust, rather the trial court proceeded to hold that the petitioners have failed to establish the disqualification of the respondent. The burden of proof has been wrongly shifted/fixed on the petitioners, and fur- ther contended that the trial court erred in appointing the respondent as a member trustee of the trust, as no such power is vested in the court. The power to induct a trustee was vested with the trust board, and the trial court should have appointed the respondent as a mem- ber of the suit, not appointed as the members of the trust. Hence, prayed for setting aside the order and dismissing the I.A. filed by the respondent. The respondent appeared and filed a counter-affidavit. 16 C.R.P. NO.228 OF 2025 2026:KER:5950
18. Per contra, the respondent seriously objected to the revision petition and supported the orders passed by the District Judge, and contended that the petitioner deliberately rejected the ap- plication filed by the respondent. Previously, the respondent filed a suit and obtained the leave of the court to file the suit against the petitioner. Later, the High Court set aside the order and directed the respondent to approach the District Court in the same suit, i.e., O.S.No.1 of 1979. Accordingly, an application filed as I.A. No.6 of 2020, wherein the District Judge directed the respondent to approach the petitioner Trust by filing an application, and the application was filed, which was rejected. Later, the respondent filed another I.A. No.15 of 2023, which came to be allowed, and as per the provisions of the byelaw, the Trust has the power to appoint and fill up the va- cancy of the Trust Members. As per the byelaw, the respondent is residing within the Aattukal Vattam and belongs to the Nair commu- nity. Therefore, he is eligible to be appointed as a Trustee/ Member 17 C.R.P. NO.228 OF 2025 2026:KER:5950 of the Trust Board. But the petitioner has wrongly rejected. There- fore, the District Judge rightly allowed the application and appointed the respondent as a Member Trustee of the Trust, and there is no illegality or irregularity committed by the District Judge for inter- ference, and hence prayed for dismissing the Revision Petition.
19. Having heard the arguments and perused the records.
20. The point that arises for my consideration is:
i) Whether the order under challenge is called for interference?
21. On perusal of the record, it is not in dispute that the peti- tioner is a Trust, namely Aattukal Bhagwati Temple Trust, which is a public Trust administered under the Scheme formulated by the District Judge in O.S. No.1 of 1979, the suit filed under Section 92 of C.P.C., and a decree was passed on 12.01.1979, a Scheme was implemented. Later, an amendment was brought by filing another application, and the amendment was duly approved by the District Judge. Thereby, as per Clause 5(e) of the byelaw, the Trust /Board 18 C.R.P. NO.228 OF 2025 2026:KER:5950 consists of 117 members of Nairs of Aattukal Vattam. As per Clause 8 of the scheme, the eldest member aged about 30 years or above of each Nair family within Aattukal Vattam, who is a perma- nent resident therein, is eligible for membership in the Board of Trust. The Scheme further provides disqualifications applicable to the Trust/ Board Members and also provides an administrative com- mittee comprising 28 members. And once in every 3 years, the list of serving Board Members shall be published in the gazette, and the Trust /Board has the power to remove the members and induct new members in the Trust as per Clause 9.
22. On this background, the respondent, being the applicant, formally filed a suit against the Trust in O.P. (Trust) No.298 of 2016. The District Court granted leave. Later, a revision was filed before the High Court in C.R.P. No.378 of 2017, wherein the High Court set aside the order and granted liberty to approach the District Judge by filing an application in O.S. No.1 of 1979 itself. Accordingly, 19 C.R.P. NO.228 OF 2025 2026:KER:5950 the respondent, along with 20 persons/ candidates, filed different ap- plications for seeking various reliefs. This respondent filed I.A. No.6 of 2020, seeking relief. I.A. No.6 of 2020 has been disposed of with a direction to the respondent to approach the Trust by order dated 12.11.2020, and directed the Trust to consider and decide the request of the respondent for membership. Accordingly, the petitioner con- sidered the application of the respondent and rejected the member- ship sought by the respondent on 30.10.2022. The respondent once again filed another I.A. No.15 of 2023 before the District Court, wherein the same came to be allowed, and the same was challenged by the Trust /Board.
23. The counsel for the petitioner is seriously contented that the respondent is not eligible for appointment to the Trust/ Board as Member, and the members shall be appointed only among the family members of 89 Nair's family, mentioned in Appendix-1, and 28 individual members mentioned in Appendix-2 of the scheme. The respondent is not eligible for appointment; even otherwise, the 20 C.R.P. NO.228 OF 2025 2026:KER:5950 father-in-law of the respondent, one P.K.K. Nair, was a member of the Trust, out of the 89 Nair family, and after his death, his wife was inducted as a member. Later, the son of the P.K.K Nair became a member, and the respondent is said to have married the daughter of P. K. K. Nair, and he is said to be residing in the nearby Aattukal Vattam. But he is not eligible as there were already his family mem- bers in the Trust/ Board, and therefore, a second person cannot be appointed from the same family.
24. Further, it is contended that, in the order passed by the District Judge in I.A. No.6 of 2020, it has specifically stated that the members will be appointed only out of the family members of the names mentioned in Appendix-1 and 2, and not the others. Therefore, the decision or finding of the District Judge in I.A. No. 6 of 2020 operates as res judicata as against the same respondent, and once again, he cannot claim the membership. Those findings at- tained the finality, and therefore, on that ground, petitioners prayed for setting aside the order under challenge.
21C.R.P. NO.228 OF 2025 2026:KER:5950
25. Per contra, respondent counsel contended that there is no res judicata applicable to the case on hand, and there are no findings; it is only an observation and application of the respondent, which was not dismissed; it was remitted back for approaching the Trust/ Board for appointment of the Trustee. Therefore, he prayed for the dismissal of the revision petition. Both the counsels relied upon various judgments in this regard.
26. Considering the above-mentioned aspect, it is worth mentioning the procedure in the byelaw. The members of the Trust and its objects are mentioned in the scheme, which is as follows.
a) To carry out the administration of the Attukal Temple in an efficient manner with time-honored systems, as was carried out by the Nair's of Attukal Pitaka since the ancient times.
b) To formulate and implement schemes for the welfare of the temple and for the growth and development of the institutions which comes under the trust.
c) The objectives of this trust are to make timely amendments in Pooja matters which come under Hindu Religion and religion related rituals, to organize bhajan classes, religious schools, lec-
tures, religious institutions, charitable institutions, to increase the religious faith of the Nair's of Pitaka and to enlighten them in the worship of idols and to do other things for their betterment.
27. The definitions mentioned in column No.5, in respect 22 C.R.P. NO.228 OF 2025 2026:KER:5950 of the Trust /Board are 5(e), which is as under:
e) Trust Board: means the body consisting of 117 Nair mem-
bers who are responsible for the administration of the Attukal Temple and are included in the First and Second Schedules of the bylaw, when this bylaw came into force.
28. On perusal of Clause 5(f), the Executive Committee shall consist of 28 members who are elected among the Trust/Board to manage the day to day affairs of the temple, and they shall be elected through secret ballot among the members of the Trust/ Board of 117 Nair family members as mentioned in 5(e) of the scheme. Wherein 117 Nair families were mentioned in Appendix-1 and 2 of the scheme, which states that Appendix-1 provides permanent resi- dents of Nair households consisting of 89 families. Appendix-2 pro- vides 28 individual members, totally 117 members. As per the Scheme, the new members have to be elected due to the death of any of the family members out of this 89 Nair family. The legal heirs are required to be elected from the family of the deceased members mentioned in the Nair family in Appendix-1.
23C.R.P. NO.228 OF 2025 2026:KER:5950 Clause 5(f) reads as under:
f) Executive Committee: means the body consisting of 28 members who are elected from among the Trust Board and are administering the day to day management of the temple. The election for the members of the Executive Committee shall be conducted through a secret ballet. For the so conducted elec-
tion, the Trust Board shall have power to frame the rules. Likewise, if any member dies among the individual members mentioned in Appendix-2, their legal heirs are entitled to be elected as members, subject to the eligibility criteria mentioned at Clause 8A of the scheme, which is as under:
29. Clause 8A reads as follows:
A. The following persons are ineligible to be the Members of the Trust Board.
1 Person of Unsound Mind.
2 Insolvent by judgment of a civil court. 3 Employees under the Trust.
4. Those Absent from 5 consecutive board meetings without prior permission.
5 Those who does not participate in the elections of the Trust.
6 Those who have shifted their permanent residence from Attukall Vattam other than the Pattukar.
7. Those who cause loss to the trust by filing illegal cases against the best interest of the trust.
8. Those who cause loss to the trust or act against its inter- est.
9. Those who have used the position as trustee for their own 24 C.R.P. NO.228 OF 2025 2026:KER:5950 interest or self-gains.
10. Those who have been convicted by court for immoral acts.
The persons covered by the above sub-section may be re- moved by the decision of the Trust Board as mentioned in Section
9.
30. Clause B also provides the names of those members mentioned in Appendix-1 and 2, who are the members of the Trust/ Board. And if any person dies or vacates the premises from Aattukal Vattam, they are disqualified as a member, and any legal heir can be inducted as a new member, subject to the eligibility of Clause 8A of the scheme. Admittedly, the respondent sought membership only based upon the Clause 8 eligibility criteria, but does not belong to the 89 Nair family mentioned in Appendix-1 or Appendix-2.
31. That apart, even otherwise, the respondent said to be married to the daughter of a deceased member P.K.K. Nair, whose name is mentioned in serial number 70 of Appendix-1. But after the death of P.K.K. Nair, his wife became a member of the Trust/Board. Subsequently, she has waived the membership and son of the P.K.K. 25 C.R.P. NO.228 OF 2025 2026:KER:5950 Nair, now elected as a member of the Trust/Board. Therefore, as per the byelaw and scheme, only one member is eligible from the one family of the deceased members, either mentioned in the Appendix- 1 or Appendix-2. Therefore, even otherwise, the respondent cannot be selected as a second family member of the P.K.K. Nair to the Trust/ Board. Therefore, I am of the view that the District Judge did not properly consider this aspect and the scheme. Wherein, the eli- gibility criteria mentioned in Clause 8 falls within the family mem- bers mentioned in Appendix-1 and 2. Though presently most of the members have died or gone outside from the Aattukal Vattam, that itself is not a ground for appointing the respondent as a member, who is not eligible to be appointed as per the scheme and byelaw.
32. That apart, when the respondent filed I.A. No. 6 of 2020, where there was an order passed by the very same District Judge, while disposing the application and granting liberty to the respondent for approaching the Trust/ Board for considering the ap- 26 C.R.P. NO.228 OF 2025 2026:KER:5950 plication for membership, wherein the District Judge has categori- cally given finding in I.A. No.6 of 2020, as held at para 8 and 9 of the order which is as under.
8. The scheme also provides for singers (pattukar) who are bestowed with customary rights to recite ritualistic songs during the annual festival. Clause 2(j) has fixed 12 persons named in Annexure II as these privileged ones among the Trus- tees. The clause goes on to say that after the lifetime of these named persons, those nominated by their families should con- tinue the custom and by no means the right shall be parted with. The total number of trustees comprising of those in the two an- nexures is 117. A list specifying the permanently resident Nair families and their representatives at the time of formation of the Trust, totaling 89, is given in annexure I. Then comes annexure II which a list of 28 named persons, the first 12 being the pat- tukars referred above.
9. The case of the petitioners is that going by the definition of the Trust Board Members in Clause 8 of the scheme, members from all Nair families having permanent residence at Attukal Vat- tom can become members of the Board. I am impressed by the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that the ad- ministration of the trust is vested with families and persons named in Annexures I and II referred above and merely by reason of the fact that permanent residency is defined, these residents cannot automatically claim right to become trustees. The perma- nently residing Nair families of Attukal Vattom are beneficiaries of the trust, but in so far as the administration is vested in certain families and persons named in the scheme, nobody else can claim right to be members of the Trust Board. Otherwise, there is no purpose for the specific / express assertion in the definition of Trust Board that it should comprise only of those included in An- nexures I and II as included at the time of commencement of the scheme.
27C.R.P. NO.228 OF 2025 2026:KER:5950
33. The same trial Court in I.A.No.6 of 2020 has already given a finding holding that the family members or legal heirs of 117 members mentioned in the list, Annexure-1 and 2, are only eli- gible for the appointment as trustees. These findings of the Trial Court in I.A. No.6 of 2020 have not been challenged by the respond- ent and have attained finality. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the subsequent application filed in I.A. No.15 of 2023, the respondent cannot seek an appointment on the same ground, without setting aside the said finding, which at- tracts res judicata in the same proceedings of the same case. Ad- mittedly, the I.A. No.6 of 2020 has been filed in the same proceed- ing, O.S. No.1 of 1979, and the I.A. No.15 of 2023 also filed in the same proceedings in O.S. No.1 of 1979. Therefore, the res judicata applicable to the case on hand, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramachandra Rao S. v. Nagabhushana Rao and Others (2022 KHC 7117), which held as follows: 28
C.R.P. NO.228 OF 2025 2026:KER:5950 9.5.1. The principle that the doctrine of res judicata is at-
tracted not only in separate subsequent proceedings but also at subsequent stage of the same proceedings is hardly of any doubt or dispute. A 3 Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Y.B. Patil (supra), has tersely underscored this principle of law in the fol- lowing terms:
"4. It is well settled that principles of res judicata can be in- voked not only in separate subsequent proceedings, they also get attracted in subsequent stage of the same proceedings. Once an order made in the course of a proceeding becomes final, it would be binding at the subsequent stage of that proceeding....."
34. In another judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Y.B Patil and Others v. Y. L. Patil (1977 KHC 727), has taken the view that the principles of res judicata applied not only in subse- quent proceedings of the same, but also in subsequent stages of the same proceedings. Based on the said judgment, the Kerala High Court in the case of Shwas Homes Private Ltd. v. Moon Waters Owners Association (2023 (4) KHC 150), also considers the princi- ples of res judicata.
35. On the other hand, the respondent counsel has relied upon the Division Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court in In- dian Oil Corporation Ltd., Kochi v. Joseph Paul [2016 (5) KHC 29 C.R.P. NO.228 OF 2025 2026:KER:5950 278], wherein, at paragraph 32, it was held that:
32. In the decision reported in Ramesh Chandra v. Shiv Charan Dass and Others, 1990 KHC 667: AIR 1991 SC 264 :
1990 Supp SCC 633 the question considered was whether the finding in an earlier case operates as res judicata. It has been held that one of the test to ascertain if the party aggrieved by the finding to challenge it. If he has no right of appeal against that finding, then that will not operate as res judicata in a subsequent proceedings. So it is clear from the above dictums that a mere finding in an earlier proceedings will not operate as res judicata unless the party against whom such a finding has been entered has a right of appeal to challenge the same. It is also clear from the dictum laid down in the above decisions that a party will not get a right of appeal against a mere finding in a proceedings. An appeal is provided only against a decree under S.96(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure and against an order under S. 104(1) read with 0.43 R.1 of Code of Civil Procedure.
36. I have perused the judgments, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically relied upon the principles of res judicata against the parties, which is also applicable in subsequent proceedings as well as in the same proceedings in subsequent stages. Here, in this case, the same proceedings in the subsequent stage, the I.A. No.6 of 2020 of the respondent were disposed of by giving a finding. However, a liberty has been granted to the respondent to 30 C.R.P. NO.228 OF 2025 2026:KER:5950 approach the petitioner Trust, and the petitioner Trust was deliber- ately considered and dismissed/rejected, based upon the scheme and byelaws. The findings in I.A.No.6 of 2020 apply res judicata in I.A.No.15 of 2023. Such being the case, I am of the view that the principles of res judicata is applicable to the case in hand, wherein the respondent is not eligible for appointment as a member of the Trust Board.
37. That apart, even otherwise, the respondent is within the family of P.K.K. Nair in serial No.70 of Appendix-1, i.e., al- ready one member is in the committee, and another person is not eligible. That apart, the District Judge has said, when the scheme was amended, and 117 persons were added, and directed the re- spondent to be included or appointed as a trustee, the power is vested with the committee in the Trust Board to appoint a new member. That apart, the respondent cannot be appointed as an additional member beyond the 117, a maximum number mentioned in Appen- 31 C.R.P. NO.228 OF 2025 2026:KER:5950 dix-1 and 2. There cannot be a third party appointed without amend- ing the scheme and byelaws of the Trust. As per the amendment, 89 Nair families and 28 individuals residing in Aattukal Vattam, and their legal heirs, are eligible for appointment, in the place of disqual- ification of any existing member or the death of the existing mem- ber. The other person cannot be added as an additional trustee be- yond 117. However, it is found that there are 117 members presently in the trust. It is reduced to 86 or below 89, and there are no mem- bers in the 28 individual families. Such being the case, the parties can approach the District Judge for election or selection to fill the vacancy of the Trust members. And if they want to include any ad- ditional members beyond 117, the scheme requires an amendment by the District Judge in an appropriate application, if any such ap- plication is filed by the parties. Therefore, any other third persons who are not the legal heirs of the family members mentioned in Ap- pendix-1 and 2 of the schemes are not entitled to be appointed as trustees, or members of the Trust. Therefore, the order of the trial 32 C.R.P. NO.228 OF 2025 2026:KER:5950 judge, allowing the application filed by the respondent, is called for interference and is liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. The order passed by the Trial Court/Additional District Judge-I, Thiruvananthapuram, in I.A. No.15 of 2023 is hereby set aside, and the order rejecting the appointment of the respondent as a member of the Trust is hereby confirmed.
Sd/-
K. Natarajan, Judge ss 33 C.R.P. NO.228 OF 2025 2026:KER:5950 APPENDIX OF CRP NO. 228 OF 2025 RESPONDENT ANNEXURES1-10 Annexure R1(a) THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 03/09/2025 ISSUED BY THE REVISION PETITIONER