save those who are related to or adopted by some one of the Dēva-dāsis for the time being, or those who, being approved by all, are elected and proposed to the Dharmakarta for dedication. That the new Dāsis may be declared to have been improperly dedicated, and not entitled to any of the rights of Dēva-dāsis, and restrained from attending the pagoda in that character, and from interfering with the duly dedicated Dēva-dāsis in the exercise of their office. That first defendant be restrained from stamping and dedicating other Dēva-dāsis but such as are duly approved. The Judge dismissed the case on the ground that it would be contrary to public policy to make the declaration prayed for, as, in so doing, the Court would be lending itself to bringing the parties under the criminal law. In the appeal, which was dismissed, one of the Judges remarked that the plaintiffs claimed a right exclusive to themselves and a few other dancing-women, professional prostitutes, to present infant female children for dedication to the temple as dancing-girls to be stamped as such, and so accredited to become at maturity professional prostitutes, private or public*[1]
(f) A Dēva-dāsi sued to establish her right to the mirāsi (fees) of dancing-girls in a certain pagoda, and to be put in possession of the said mirāsi together with the honours and perquisites attached thereto, and to recover twenty-four rupees, being the value of said perquisites and honours for the year preceding. She alleged that the Dharmakarta of the pagoda and his agents wrongfully dismissed her from the office because she had refused to acquiesce in the admission by the Dharmakarta of new dancing-girls into the pagoda service, of
- ↑ • Ibid,, Vol. I, 1876-78.
