JUDGMENT 1. In our opinion the learned Subordinate Judge took the correct view both as to the general principle and as to the particular case. There may have been some divergence of view in this Court in the past, as Mr. Patanjali Sastri contends, but latterly the trend of the decisions has undoubtedly been towards the view that once a decree settling a scheme has been passed the Court has done its duty and is not to be called upon in the execution department to make the scheme work (vide Vaithilinga Mudaliar v. Board of Control, Sri Thyagarajaswami Devasthanam, Tiruvarur AIR1936Mad581 . With due respect to the learned Judges who have taken the other view, we think this is correct, and see no sufficient reason to accept Mr. M. Patanjali Sastris suggestion that the case should be laid before a Full Bench. 2. In this case before us, we agree with the learned Subordinate Judge that the decree itself does not even purport to be executable. It provides in paragraph 4 that the Manager shall deposit the Kattalai funds (over Rs. 1,000) in a Bank, but it makes no provision for the decision of any dispute between the Manager and the hukdar as to the amount due to be deposited. 3. In paragraph 9 it is ordered that there shall be an annual audit but no provision is made for scrutiny of the auditors report by the Court or for enforcing any conclusions arrived at by the auditor or the Court. 4. As the learned Subordinate Judge observes there is nothing of an executable character in either paragraph 4 or paragraph 9 of the decree. 5. This appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.