NORI LAKSHMINARASIMHAM Vs. PRATIPATHI LAKSHMINARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We are unable to agree with the learned District Judge that Section 148 or 151, Civil Procedure Code, could enable a Court after a decree had become final to change the terms of the decree [See Suranjan Singh v. Bam Bahal Lal 17 Ind. Qas. 912 : 10 A.L.J. 520.]

(2.) The first defendant declared his inability to stand the test," that is, he admitted that he could not prove his competency for the office. As regards the second defendant, the learned District Judge s finding, as to his competency, is somewhat obscure. In one place, the Judge says : The second defendant on the other hand showed much improvement in learning and in reciting the mantras, though the Commissioner was not perfectly satisfied with the result". In another place, the Judge says that the second defendant also should undergo another test and prove his competency.

(3.) We shall request the District Judge to submit definite findings on the- following issues on the evidence on record : Whether the second defendant was fairly cognizant of the mantrams mentioned in the decree, and whether he was fairly fit for the office of archaka when the District Munsif granted a declaration as to his unfitness. if the second defendant was fairly fit at that time, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to any relief under the decree and, if so, what relief?