- (1.) This is an appeal by leave granted under Article 136(1) of the Constitution against the second appellate judgment of the High Court of Patna. It relates to the office of 'Pujari' and 'Panda' of a famous temple in the town of Arrah in the State of Bihar, known as the temple of Aranya Devi and Killa Ki Devi. The appellant before us - a woman -brought this suit claiming joint title to the office along with the defendant and as such entitled to perform the 'Puja' either by herself or through her 'Karinda' and to get a half share in the income of offerings of the said Asthan. It is the admitted case that this office belongs to the family of both the parties and that the duties of the office were being jointly performed by the defendant and his deceased brothers. Rambeyas Pande, and that they were enjoying the emoluments jointly. The plaintiff - the widow of Rambeyas Pande - claims to have succeeded to her husband's share in this property and bases her suit on the said claim. In the written statement the defendant raised three main defences, two out of which are (1) the plaintiff was not the legally wedded wife of his brother, Rambeyas Pande, and (2) during the life time of Rambeyas Pande, there was a division between them with reference to the office of Pujari' and Panda' belonging to this family in respect of two temples (a) at Arrah and (b) at Gangipul, that the office of Pujari' at Gangipul was given to the plaintiff's husband and that the temple of Aran Devi at Arrah was given to the defendant and that since then, i.e. for about 11 years prior to the date of the suit, the plaintiff's husband had no connection with the office of 'pujari' in this temple nor with the receipt of any offerings therein. Both these contentions were found against the defendant by the trial court as well as by the first appellate court and they have become conclusive. The further and third defence raised by the defendant was that the property in suit, viz., the office of 'Pujari' and 'Panda' of the temple cannot be inherited by a female. The contention is set out in the following terms in he written statement : "The plaintiff not at all entitled to the office and the post of Pujari and Panda of Arun Devi and she is not entitled to get 1/2 share or any share in the income and offering of the said Asthan, nor has she got any right to perform Puja as a Panda personally, or through her karinda and to get the income, etc. This is against the custom and usage and practice and also against the Sastras. The property in suit is such as cannot be inherited by a female". It is the question thus raised which has got to be considered in this appeal.
(2.) The trial court held against this contention in the following terms: "No authority has been cited nor any custom proved to show that female cannot inherit a property of this nature". The first appellate court also affirmed this view as follows; "The defendant's objection that the plaintiff being a female is not authorised to hold the office of a priest of the Aranya Debi temple is not borne out by any evidence or material on the record. There is nothing to show that by reason of her sex she is debarred from holding this office either by religion, custom or usage. Moreover admittedly she holds the office at the Gangi temple."
(3.) On the findings arrived at by the trial court and the first appellate court, the plaintiff got a decree as prayed for declaring her right to half share in the office and for recovery of mesne profits on that footing. On second appeal to the High Court, the learned Judges went into the question at some length and were of the opinion that "the plaintiff being a female is not entitled to inherit the priestly office in question and her claim to officiate as a priest in the temple by rotation cannot be sustained. The declaration sought for by her that she is entitled to the office of Pujari cannot, therefore, be granted." They held, however, "that she is not debarred from being entitled to be maintained out of the estate of her husband which, in the particular case, happens to be no other than the emoluments attached to the priestly office in the shape of offerings made to the deity which office was undoubtedly hereditary". They further held that "she will be entitled to receive from the defendant half the amount of the offerings in lieu of her maintenance" and they varied the decree of the trial court accordingly. The short question that arises, therefore, for consideration in this appeal is whether a Hindu female is entitled to succeed to the hereditary priestly office of a 'Pujari' and 'Panda' held by her husband in a temple and to receive the emoluments thereof. This is a question about which there has been some difference of opinion in the decided cases. It requires dose examination.;