LexRAJ KALI KUER versus RAM RATTAN PANDEY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1955 April 7 186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS RAJ KALI KlJER v. RAM RATTAN PANDEY [VIVIAN BosE, JAGANNADHADAS and SINHA JJ.} [ 1955] Hindu Law-Hereditary priestly office of a Puiari and Panda -Hindu female-Right to succeed-Usage. Though a female is personally disqualified from officiating as a Pujari for the Shastrically installed and consecrated idols in the temples, the usage of a Hindu female succeeding to a priestly office and getting the same performed through a competent Cleputy has been well-recognised and it is not contrary to textual Hindu Law nor opposed to public policy. Subject to the proper and efficient dis- charge of the duties of the office being safeguarded by appropriate action when necessary, a Hindu female ·has a right to succeed to the hereditary priestly office of a Pujari and Panda held by her hus- band and to get the duties of the office p<:rfom1ed by a substitute cxt·cpt in ca:ses wh\.'ft: u~age 10 the ~ontrary i::; pleaded and estab- lished. Quacrc :--Whether and how far votive offerings can be appro- priated by a Pujari for his emoluments if the temple is a public institutioni (i.e., not a private f;unily temple) and whether any usage in this bclnlf is valid. C<1:>c-la\\' and the relevant texts revie\rcd. Judgment of the lligh Court of Patna reversed. CIVIL APPELLATE 'JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 136 of 1953. Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 4th day of May 1949 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Appeal from Appellate Decree No. 1918 of 1947 against the Decree dated the 23rd day of July 1947 of the Subordinate Judge; Arrah in Appeal No. 137 of 1946 arising from thct Decree dated the 29th March 1946 of the Court of the 2nd Munsif at Arrah in Suit No. T.S. 120 of 1943. R. C. Prasad, for tpe appellant. S. P. Varma, for the respondent. 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 187 1955. April 7. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAGANNADHADAS J.-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 P11jari 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 A stha11. It is the admitted case that this office belongs to the family of both the par- ties and that the duties of the office were being jointly performed by the defendant and his deceased brother, Rambeyas Pande, and that they were enjoy- ing the emoluments jointly. The plaintiff-the widow of Rambeyas Pande-daims 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 plain- tiff's· husband and that the temple of Aran Devi at Arrah was given to the defendant and that since then, i.e., for about l l 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 conten- tions 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, riz., the office of Pujari and Panda of the tern:. pie cannot be inherited by a female. The contention 1955 Raj Kali Kuer v. Ram Ratran Pandey J955 Raj Kali Kuer '/ .. Rain Rattan Pandey Jaganuadhadn.~ J. 188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1955] is set out in the following terms in the written statement: "The plaintiff is not at all entitled to the office and the post of Pujari and Panda of Arun Devi and she is not entitled to get 112 share or any share in the in- come and offering of the said Asthan, nor
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.