Summarize the following court judgment. 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 the Decree dated the 29th March 1946 of the Court of the 2nd Munsif at Arrah in Suit No. T. section 120 of 1943. R. C. Prasad	 for the appellant. section P. Varma	 for the respondent. 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 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 brother	 Rambeyas Pande	 and that they were enjoy ing 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 templet cannot be inherited by a female	 The contention 188 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 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 con sidered in this appeal. 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". 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 debar red from being entitled to be maintained out of the estate of her	 husband which	 in 189 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 diff erence of opinion in the decided cases. It requires close examination. That religious offices can be hereditary and that the right to such an office is in the nature of property under the Hindu Law is now well established. A Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Manohar vs Bhupendra(1) has laid this down in respect of Shebaitship of a temple and this view has been accepted by the Privy Council in two subsequent cases in Ganesh vs Lal Behary(2) and Bhabatarini vs Ashalata (3). In a recent judgment of this Court reported as The Com missioner	 Hindu Religious Endowments	 Madras vs Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar(4) this view has been reiterated and extended to the office of a Mahant. On the view that Shebaiti is property	 this Court has also recognised the right of a female to succeed to the religious office of Shebaitship in the case reported as Angurbala vs Debabrata(5)	 where the question as to the applicability of Hindu Women 's Right to Property Act to the office of Shebaitship came up for consideration. On the same analogy as that of a Shebaiti right	 the right of a hereditary priest or Pujari in a temple must also amount to property where emoluments are attached to such an office. Indeed	 some of the decisions which have recognised the Shebaiti right as property appear to be cases where the Shebaiti (1) A.I.R. 1932 Calcutta 791. (2) (1936] L.R. 68 I.A. 448. (3) [1943] L.R. 70 I.A. 57. (4) ; (5) 190 right combines the priestly office of a Pujari of the idol with the office of the manager of the temple	 who in South India	 is known by the name of Dharmakarta. As early as in Mitta Kunth Audhicarry vs Neerunjun Audhicarry(1)	 it was recognised that hereditary priestly office in a family is property liable to partition. A number of other decisions to be noticed in the later part of this judgment recognise this position. The learned Judges of the High Court in their judgment in the case under appeal	 have attempted to distinguish the present case from that of the case of the Shebaitship and have come to the conclusion that while in respect of Shebaiti right a woman may succeed by heirship	 she is not entitled to such succession in respect of the right of a Panda and Pujari. But in making this distinction they do not negative the idea that the right to the office of the Pujari itself is property to which a female could succeed	 but for her supposed disqualification. The disqualification is said to arise with reference to the duties attached to this office	 and it is said that in this respect it differs from the office of a Shebait. Now there can be no doubt that while in one sense the right to such a religious office is property it involves also substantial elements of duty. As has been stated by this Court in Angurbala vs Debabrata(2) and in The Commissioner	 H. R. E.	 Madras vs Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar(3) "both the elements of office and property	 of duties and personal interest are blended together (in such offices) and neither can be detached from the other". It must also be recognised that in respect of such offices especially where they are attached to public institutions	 the duties are to be regarded as primary and that the rights and emoluments are only appurtenant to the duties. See the observations of Justice Page in Nagendra vs Rabindra(4) at pages 495 and 496 and that of Justice Sadasiva Aiyar in Sundarambal vs Yogavanagurukkal(5) at page 564	 as also of Mukherjea on 'Endowments (1) [1875] XIV B.L.R. 166. (2) (1951] S.C.R. 1125. (3) ; (4) A.I.R. 1926 Calcutta.490. (5) A.I.R. 1915 Madras 561. 191 (1952 Edn.) page 201. If	 therefore	 it is found that the recognition of a female 's right to succeed to the hereditary office of Pujari in a temple held by her husband is incompatible with due discharge of the duties of the office	 her right to succeed must be negatived. The correct approach to a question of this kind has been laid down by the Privy Council in a case which relates to a Mohammadan religious office but would equally be applicable to a Hindu religious office. In Shahar Bano vs Aga Mahomed Jaffer Bindaneem(1) their Lordships	 after noticing the View taken by the learned Judges of the Calcutta High Court	 that "there is no legal prohibition against a woman holding a mutwalliship when the trust	 by its nature involves no spiritual duties such as a woman could not properly discharge in person or by deputy" approved this view of the High Court and said "it appears to their Lordships that there is ample authority for that proposition". The question	 therefore	 that requires consideration in the present case is whether the office of the Pujari and Panda in a temple involves such duties as could not be discharged by a female in person and if so	 whether she is also incompetent to get the same discharged by a deputy. Now for this purpose it is desirable to have a clear idea of the duties of a Pujari in an ordinary Hindu temple. A Pujari has to perform the prescribed daily worship of the image as well as the special worship of a periodical nature on particular occasions and for prescribed festivals during the year. In Ramabrahma Chatterjee V. Kedar Nath Banerjee Justice Sir Asutosh Mookerjee indicated the daily routine of worship in the following passage: "The normal type of continued worship of a consecrated image consists of the sweeping of a temple	 the process of smearing	 the removal of the previous day 's offerings of flowers	 the presentation of fresh flowers and water	 and other like practices. It is sufficient to state that the deity is	 in short	 conceived as a living being and is treated in the same way as the (1) [1906] L.R. 84 I.A. 46	 53. (2) A.I.R. 1923 Calcutta 60	 62. 192 master of the house would be treated by his humble servant. The daily routine of life is gone through with minute accuracy; the vivified image is regaled with the necessaries and luxuries of life in due succession	 even to the changing of clothes	 the offering of cooked and uncooked food	 and the retirement to rest". In Saraswati 's Hindu Law of Endowments(1) the nature of the daily worship of a consecrated idol in a temple is set out at pages 134 and 135 in detail. It must be recognised that the daily worship differs according to the tenets and usages of the religious sect for which the temple is intended and the idol is consecrated. But whatever may be the details of the worship and the variations therein	 there can be no doubt that the ministration of various services involving personal touch of the idol	 and	 often enough	 the recitation of religious hymns inclusive of Vedic hymns are amongst the normal and essential features of a Pujari 's duties	 at any rate in temples where the worship is conducted according to the Shastras. It is also undisputed that according to Hindu Shastras the functions of a Pujari can be performed only by certain limited classes and involves special qualifications and that these classes may vary with the nature of the institution. Now	 whatever may have been the position in early times	 of which there is no clear historical evidence	 it appears to have been well established in later times that a female	 even of the recognised limited classes	 cannot by herself perform the duties of a Pujari. Even at a time when the institution of temple worship had probably not come into general vogue	 the incapacity of a woman to recite Vedic texts	 to offer sacrificial fire	 or to perform sacramental rites	 is indicated in certain texts of Manu. (See Sacred Books of the East	 Manu	 Vol. 25	 pages 330 and 437	 Chapter 9	 section 18 and Chapter 11	 section 36). Whether it is on the basis of these texts or for some other reason	 her incapacity to discharge	 in person	 the duties of the Pujari appears to have been well (1) The Hindu Law of Endowments by Pandit Prannath Saraswati	 T.L.L.	 1892. (1897 Edn.). 193 settled in later times as appears from the following text from Brihan Naradiya Purana quoted in Saraswati 's Hindu Law of Endowments at page 136. "Women	 those uninvested with the sacred thread	 (i.e. the members of the Dvija class before the initiation ceremony has been performed for them)	 and Sudras are not competent to touch images of Vishnu or Siva. A Sudra	 one uninvested with the sacred thread	 a woman or an outcaste	 having touched Vishnu or Siva	 goes to hell". This passage	 in terms	 refers to the images of Vishnu and Siva but it may reasonably be assumed	 in the absence of any evidence to the contrary	 that in practice the incapacity of a female to discharge the duties of a Pujari by herself extended	 at any rate	 to all public temples where an image of whatever form had been consecrated and installed according to the Shastras. Indeed	 all the cases on the subject have assumed this incapacity of the female. The point of controversy has been whether she is also incompetent to get the duties discharged by employing a qualified substitute. If her competence in this behalf is recognised and can be accepted there is no reason why she should not be held entitled to succeed to the office. Thus the really important question for consideration in this case is whether the duties of the Pujari '8 office can be got done by a substitute and if so is there any particular reason or clearly established usage	 against a female employing such a substitute and thus becoming entitled to the office. In early Hindu society a priestly office could have relation only to the performance of various kinds of Vedic rituals and sacrifices either of a daily and routine nature or of a periodical and special nature. In theory a Brahmin is to perform such functions for himself by himself	 while persons of other classes 	should get them done through qualified Brahmin	s. On principle a	 priest in the Hindu concept is chosen as such with reference to his personal qualities and competence. The system of hereditary priesthood however	 with the possibility of persons not fully 25 194 competent	 succeeding to or occupying such an office	 appears to have come into vogue from fairly early times. It appears	 however	 that from the very nature of the situation	 the temporary discharge of the priestly function by a substitute in the place of the hereditary priest was a matter of inevitable necessity since the Hindu Shastras recognised temporary and casual disqualifications like that of butt and death pollution. But there does not appear to be any indication in the early books of any general practice about the functions of priestly office being discharged by proxies. In comparatively later days	 however	 there is clear indication of such a practice. In Saraswati 's Hindu Law of Endowments at page 56	 it is stated that in the Padma Purana and other treatises incapacitated persons are directed to have the worship performed through Brahmins. This statement is with reference to the performance of service of an idol and has presumably reference to the incapacity of persons occupying a priestly office. In Colebrooke 's translation of the Digest of Hindu Law on Contracts and Successions with a commentary by Jagannatha Tercapanchanana (4th Edition	 published by Higginbotham & Co.	 Madras	 1874)	 Vol. I	 Book II	 Chapter III	 Section 11	 pages 360 to 381 deal with the topic of partnership among priests jointly officiating at holy rites. A perusal thereof and particularly of placita 28 to 44 containing citations from various Smrutis with Jagannatha 's commentary thereon	 clearly indicate that the institution of hereditary priestship	 became established by that date and that the performance of such priestly functions by substitutes had definitely come into vogue. Various rules are propounded as to the sharing of remuneration between the substitute priest and the hereditary priest when the former happens to perform the functions in the place of the latter. It is to be noticed that these passages from Jagannatha 's Digest refer in terms only to priestly office by way of officiating at holy rites	 i.e.	 sacrifices and other Vedic or Shastric functions but do not in terms refer to the discharge of a priest 's duties in relation to the worship of an idol in a temple. 195 This is all the more remarkable because by the date of Jagannatha 's Digest the institution of worship of consecrated idols in temples had become long since fairly established. The probable explanation is that Jagannatha 's Digest is a commentary on selected texts mostly of the various Smrutis from which he quotes and that in the days of the Smrutis the temple worship does not appear to have come sufficiently into vogue. The historical origin and growth of temple worship has been fully dealt with in Saraswati 's Hindu Law of Endowments and has been also noticed in the referring judgment in Annaya Tantri vs Ammaka Hengsu(1). It is pointed out therein that according to Hindu sentiment the performance of the duties of an Archaka or Pujari for an idol has been considered sinful and it required inducements by way of liberal grants of land and promise of substantial perquisites to attract competent persons for the office of Pujari or Archaka. This	 in course of time and with the change in social conditions and economic values	 rendered the offices of Panda and Pujari in almost all the famous shrines in India	 a lucrative affair	 and has enabled the hereditary priests to get the functions discharged by paid substitutes and themselves enjoy a substantial margin of income. Here just in the same way as the patronage of the kings or the society may have been a great incentive to the development of the system of discharge of hereditary priestly functions by substitutes in relation to sacrificial and Vedic religious rites	 the phenomenal development and worship of idols in temples and the substantial emoluments which in course of time rendered the discharge of priestly office lucrative must have brought into vogue the employment of substitutes for performance of the duties of the priests not only for sacrificial or other religious rites but also for temple worship. Whether and how far this practice is permitted by the Shastras is not the question before us. But it cannot be denied and is indeed a matter of common knowledge	 that at the present day	 hereditary priestly offices are	 as often as not	 performed by proxies	 (1) A.l. P	 1919 'Madras 598 (F	B.). 196 the choice of proxy being	 of course	 limited to a small circle permitted by usage. The question for consideration of the courts is	 whether	 in this state of things	 a female is to be excluded from succession to the hereditary office of Pujari on account of her well recognised personal disqualification to officiate as such Pujari for the Shastrically installed and consecrated idols in the temples and whether she is to be denied the capacity to retain the property by getting the priestly duties efficiently discharged through a competent substitute. The only basis for the alleged denial is a passage from Jagannatha 's Digest which is as follows: (Vide Vol. 1	 page 379	 commentary under placitum 43). "Wives and others	 disqualified by sex for the performance of holy rites	 cannot appoint a substitute; as defiled person cannot perform a solemn act ordained by the Vedas	 therefore wives have no property in the office of priest". Now apart from the question whether this passage can be taken to be sufficiently authoritative	 there has been some difference of opinion as to the correct import thereof. In Sundarambal Ammal vs Yogavanagurukkal(1) this passage has been relied upon by Justice Sadasiva Aiyar as showing that women are incompetent to discharge the functions of a priest even through a substitute and that	 therefore	 they have no right of succession to the office. The learned Judges of the High Court in the present case have also relied on it. In Annaya Tantri vs Ammaka Hengsu(2)	 Justice Seshagiri Aiyar in his referring judgment has referred to this passage and was of the opinion that it does not express a specific view. In Ganapathi Iyer on Hindu and Mahomedan Endowments (2nd Edn.) the learned author while commenting on this very passage says as follows at page 453 of his book: "Jagannatha there considers the question whether wives and others have a title to the succession to this priestly office. As usual with the discussions of (1) A.I.R. 1915 Mad. (2) A.I.R. 1919 Mad. 598 (F.B.). 197 Jagannatha it is difficult to say what his final opinion is. But we should certainly think that Jagannatha 's opinion is that women can inherit doing the duties through a substitute	 but enjoying the emoluments attached to that office". It appears on a careful consideration of the disputed passage with reference to its context	 that this view ' of the learned author is correct. In any case the passage cannot be definitely relied upon as an authority for the contrary view. The discussion in connection with which this passage occurs in the commentary is under placitum No. 43 in Section II of Chapter III	 Book II	 which is a text from Narada relating to hereditary priests. The statement relied on occurs at a place where there is an attempt to reconcile the disqualification of the female to discharge the functions of a hereditary priest	 and the recognition of her right to succeed to all property including a hereditary office. The relevant portions of the discussion are herein below set out: "It is doubted whether wives and others have a title to this succession	 although the partition founded on the admission of a right vesting in Agraharicas and other officiating priests	 ought to be similar to the partition of inheritance in general. As the wife 's title to succession	 on failure of heirs in the male line as far as the great grandson	 will be declared under the head of Inheritance	 what should reverse her title in this instance? It should not be argued	 that the wife can have no right to the village	 because as a woman	 she is disqualified for the performance of holy rites	 and because the wives of agraharicas and others are totally incapable of receiving tila delivered as a gift to priests. The tila may be received	 and the rites be performed	 through the intervention of a substitute. Let it not be argued	 that	 were it so	 a property in the sacrificial fee and regular dues would vest in the substitute. The wife may have the benefit of property acquired by the substitute	 as a sacrificer has the benefit of rites per formed by an officiating priest. However	 there is this difference: the sacrificer acquires merit from rites 198 performed by an officiating priest	 and none is ever acquired by the intermediate performer of the rites; but if the duty of the officiating priest. be performed by a substitute	 property in the sacrificial fee is at first vested in the substitute	 and through him	 in the widow entitled thereto. It is alleged	 that there is no authority for this construction. * * * * The text which ordains that "a person unable to act shall appoint another to act for him"	 is the foundation of this construction: but the property of an outcaste	 or other person disqualified for solemn rites	 is absolutely lost	 in the same manner with his right to the paternal gold	 silver	 and the like. This will be explained in the fifth book on Inheritance. Wives and others	 disqualified by sex for the performance of holy rites	 cannot appoint a substitute: as a defiled person cannot perform a solemn act ordained by the Vedas: therefore wives have no property in the office of priest". At the end of the discussion there is the following significant passage: "Therefore the difficulty is thus reconciled; women are entitled to that only for which they are qualified. In regard to the assertion	 that women	 being disqualified	 cannot appoint a substitute	 this must be understood: being disqualified for solemn acts ordained by the Vedas	 they cannot appoint a substitute for such acts; but	 qualified for worldly acts	 nothing prevents their appointment of a substitute for temporal affairs: and the right should devolve on the next in succession	 under the text quoted in another place (Book 5	 vs 477) and because women are dependent on men. Grain and similar property may be consumed by a woman entitled to the succession; but gold	 silver	 and the like	 should be preserved: if she cannot guard it	 let it be entrusted to her husband 's heir	 as will be mentioned under the title of inheritance. Here	 since a woman cannot preserve the office	 it should be executed by her husband 's daughter 's son	 or other heir: but the produce 199 should be enjoyed by the woman. However	 should the daughter 's son be at variance with his maternal grandmother	 it may be executed by another person: he is not entitled to his maternal grandfather 's property	 if that grandfather leave a wife: and should the maternal grandmother litigate	 it must be amicably adjusted". The concluding portion seems rather to indicate that the more categorical passage underlined above and relied upon is in the nature of an objection which is being answered and that the final conclusion is the recognition of a right to succeed by getting the duties of the office performed by the next male in succession. The learned Judges of the High Court have in fact noticed this concluding passage but have missed its correct import. It is desirable now to consider how this question stands with reference to the decided cases in the various High Courts. A fairly substantial number of cases appear in the reports of the Madras High Court. One of the earliest decisions is that of the Madras Sadar Diwani Adalat in Seshu Ammal vs Soundaraja Aiyar(1) wherein it was held	 following the opinion of the Sadar Court Pandits	 that a woman was disqualified by reason of her sex from inheriting the office of Acharya purusha but the same Pandits ' opinion distinctly recognises that religious offices like those of an Archaka or Pujari can be held by a female	 by her getting the duties thereof performed through a competent male substitute. In Tangirala Chiranjivi vs Rama Manikya Rao Rajaya Lakshmamma(2) it was stated that there was no basis for the assumption that a minor	 a female	 or a person unlearned in the Vedas	 will lose the right to service in the temple and that the onus will be on the person who alleges the dis qualification to prove it. The learned Judges categorically asserted (apparently as being a matter within general knowledge and experience) that "service in temples is being performed by proxies". In Ramasundaram Pillai vs Savundaratha Ammal(3) the learned Judges say as follows: (1) [1863] M.S.D.A. 261. (2) A.I.R. 1915 Madras 505(1). (3) A.I.R. 1915 Madras 725. 200 "It is undeniable that this and other High Courts have in numerous cases acted on the assumption (which was not questioned) that women could hold religious offices and get the duties performed by proxy". They further say "It may be that the parties concerned are so accustomed to the idea of female office holders with proxies that it has usually not occurred to them to question the legality of such a state of affairs and that in the absence of contest	 the Courts have somewhat too readily assumed it to be legal without requiring proof of a valid custom in support of it". In Rajeswari Ammal vs Subramania Archaka(1) the learned Judges state as follows: "We are of the opinion that a female is not	 under Hindu law or custom	 disqualified from succeeding to a hereditary religious office and getting such duties as she may be disqualified by reason of her sex from performing	 performed by proxy". The only dissentient view against this current of authority in the Madras High Court was that of Justice Sadasiva Aiyar in Sundarambal Ammal vs Yogavanagurukkal (2) . He expressed a strong opinion that the practice of allowing the priestly office to be performed by a substitute excepting for merely temporary occasions or casual purposes	 is wholly opposed to public policy and that it should not be recognised. In a later judgment in Annaya Tantri vs Ammaka Hengsu(3) relating to the same topic be (Justice Sadasiva Aiyar) stated as follows: "It is notorious that the deputy is usually chosen on the principle of a Dutch auction. The man who agrees to allow the widow to retain the largest portion of the emoluments of the office and to receive the least as his own remuneration is given the place of the deputy". The learned Judge pointed out that "such a practice was mischievous and that even (1) A.I.R. 1917 Madras 963(2). (2) A.I.R. 1915 Madras 561. (3) A.I.R.1919 Madras 598 (F.B.). 201 if it was sanctioned by usage it ought not to be recognised by courts". There is certainly force in this comment. But in a matter of this kind where there is no express prohibition in the texts for the performance of the duties of the Pujari 's office by the appointment of substitutes and where such an office has developed into a hereditary right of property	 the consideration of public policy cannot be insisted to the extent of negativing the right itself. In such a situation what has to be equally emphasised is the duty aspect of the office and to insist	 on the superior authorities in charge of the temple exercising vigilantly their responsibility by controlling the then incumbent of the priestly office in the exercise of his rights (or by other persons having interest taking appropriate steps through court)	 when it is found that the services are not being properly or efficiently performed. In view of the peculiar nature of such offices as combining in them both the element of property and the element of duty	 it cannot be doubted that superior authorities in charge of the institutions or other persons interested have this right which may be enforced by appropriate legal means. In Raja Peary Mohan Mukherji vs Manohar Mukherji(1) the Privy Council has recognised that notwithstanding the personal interest of a Shebait in respect of his office	 the performance of the duties thereof has got to be safeguarded and that he can be removed where he has put himself in a position in which the obligation of his office can no longer be faithfully discharged. So far as the Madras High Court area is concerned	 the controversy has been settled by the Full Bench case in Annaya Tantri vs Ammaka Hengsu(2) where the view taken by Justice Sadasiva Aiyar was specifically overruled on the ground that "there were numerous decisions of the Madras High Court in conformity with the decisions of the other High Courts by which the widow and the daughter and the daughter (1) [1921] L.R. 48 I.A. 258. (2) A.I.R. 1919 Madras 598 (F.B.). 26 202 of the last male Archaka are held entitled in accordance with the established user to succeed to the office of Archaka discharging his duties by deputy and to transmit it to their heirs	 who as male heirs are preferred to female	 and will generally be competent to perform the duties in person". These decisions of the Madras High Court seem to recognise both the factum and validity of the usage as one that has been accepted by the courts not only within its own jurisdiction but also within the jurisdiction of the other High Courts. It is urged	 however	 that there is no such usage that can be definitely said to be established with reference to the decisions of the other High Courts. As regards the other High Courts doubtless the actual cases appearing in the reports about this point are not many. In the Bombay High Court one of the earliest decisions is the case in 1866 of Keshavbhat bin Ganeshbhat vs Bhagirhibai kom Narayanbhat(1) where the learned Judges say as follows: "With respect to the objection	 that a Hindu female cannot perform the duties which attach to the office for the maintenance of which the allowance was granted	 it may be observed that the defendant had not proved the existence of any usage in conformity with his allegations. The claim in question in that case was to an annual allowance paid from the Government Treasury to the members of a family for the maintenance of certain religious services at the temple of Mahadev at Baneshvar near Poona. In Sitarambhat et al vs Sitaram Ganesh(2) the head note shows as follows: "Semble	 that an hereditary priestly office descends in default of males through females". This is apparently the assumption on which that judgment appears to have proceeded though the matter does not appear to have been specifically so decided. In Calcutta one of the early cases is Poorun Narain Dutt vs Kasheessuree Dosee(3). There it was recognised that a woman can succeed to a priestly (1) 3 B.H.C.R.	 A.C.J. 75. (2) 6 B.H.C.R. A.C.J. 250. (3) 203 office and the contention to the contrary was over. ruled on the ground that the lower appellate court found the same as a fact on the evidence and that no one but the defendant had raised the contention. In Joy Deb Surma vs Huroputty Surma(1) the same question was raised	 viz.	 whether according to Hindu law a woman can succeed to the priestly office and reliance appears to have been placed for that contention on the passage from Colebrooke 's Digest already above referred to. In view of this contention the learned Judges remitted the case to the lower court for deter mination of the question whether with reference to any particular custom or rule of Hindu law a woman is entitled to succeed to the priestly office. In that case it was the office of the Dolloi of the temple. It does not appear what the finding received was and how this matter was finally decided. In Radha Mohun Mundul vs Jadoomonee Dossee(2) their Lordships of the Judicial Committee quoted with apparent approval the following passage from the judgment of the trial Court: "They (the members of the family) merely say that as the said properties are of a debuttur character	 they are not susceptible of division among the shareholders; and that since the plaintiff is a childless widow	 she is not competent to carry on the service of the gods. That the properties in question do not admit of any partition among the co sharers is a fact which must be admitted by me; but I do not see any reason why a widow of the family should be incapacitated from superintending the service of the gods. It is not urged by the defendants that any such rule has been laid down in the family	 and that under it the widows have been excluded from the above superintendence. On the other hand	 among the Hindoos	 persons belonging to no other caste except that of Brahmins can perform the service of a god with his own hands	 that is	 worship the idol by touching its person. Men of other castes simply superintend the service of the gods and goddesses established by them selves	 while they cause their actual worship to be (1) (2) 204 performed by Brahmins. Thus	 when persons of the above description can conduct the service of idols in the above mentioned manner	 why should not the widows of their family be able to carry on worship in a similar way?. . . . . . Consequently	 there is nothing to prevent the Court from finding that the plaintiff has a right to hold possession of the debutter properties enumerated by the defendants in the 12th paragraph of their written statement	 and to superintend the service of the gods conjointly with the other co sharers". In Mahamaya Debi vs Haridas Haldar(1) it has been recognised that according to custom the palas of Kalighat shrine in Calcutta are heritable and that it was immaterial whether the heir is a male or a female. This must necessarily have involved the recognition of the capacity of the female to get the worship performed by a male substitute who is to be taken from a limited class. As has been already noticed	 the reported cases dealing with this matter outside the Madras High Court do not appear to be many. At any rate	 no others have been brought to our notice dealing with this question directly	 though there are many cases relating to the question of succession to the office of Shebait and the performance of duties thereof by proxy	 which is a matter distinguishable from a case relating to the office of Pujari or Archaka simpliciter. The paucity of decided cases in the reports of the other High Courts may very well be due to what has been pointed out in one of the Madras cases	 viz.	 that the practice of females succeeding to this office and getting the duties thereof performed by a substitute was so common and well recognised that it has not been seriously contested and brought up to the Courts. Further the institution of private family temples and the endowments of large and substantial properties for the Deb seva in such temples though somewhat uncommon in South India is fairly common in Bengal and some other States. In view of the Dayabhaga system of law of succession prevalent in Bengal and the very much larger number (1) A.I.R. 1915 Calcutta 161(2). 205 of occasions for wives and daughters succeeding to a sonless coparcener in Dayabhaga joint families	 the practice of females succeeding to the priestly office and of getting the duties performed by other members of the family as proxies in their places must	 by the very situation	 have been common in these areas. The case reported in Jalandhar Thakur vs Jharula Das(1) is a case relating to Shebait 's (priest 's) office in the Singheswar temple of Bhagalpur and the facts therein show that there was unquestioned female succession to the office. It is a clear indication of the prevalence of the usage of female succession to priestly office in the State of Bihar from which the present case arises. A careful review	 therefore	 of the reported cases on this matter shows that the usage of a female succeeding to a priestly office and getting the same performed through a competent deputy is one that has been fairly well recognised. There is nothing in the textual Hindu law to the contrary. Nor can it be said that the recognition of such a usage is opposed to public policy	 in the Hindu law sense. As already pointed out the consideration of public policy can only be given effect in the present state of the law	 to the extent required for enforcing adequate discharge of the duties appurtenant to the office. Subject to the proper and efficient discharge of the duties of the office	 there can be no reason either on principle or on authority to refuse to accord to a female the right to succeed to the hereditary office held by her husband and to get the duties of the office performed by a substitute excepting in cases where usage to the contrary is pleaded and established. In the present case such a usage was pleaded by the defendant in his written statement but no evidence of it was given. Indeed as pointed out by the first appellate Court	 the plea that there has been a partition of the offices of the two temples and the implied recognition of the plaintiff 's right to the office of the other temple at Gangupal appears to indicate the contrary usage. We are accordingly of the opinion (1) A.I.R. 1914 P.C. 72. 206 that the claim of the plaintiff appellant is made out and that she is entitled to succeed. The discussion above is more germane to the case of a public temple wherein the idol has been Shastrically installed and consecrated and the worship is in accordance with the Shastras. There is nothing on the record to show whether the temple in this case falls within this category. If	 however	 the temple is a private one or the idol therein is not one Shastrically consecrated	 the case in favour of the plaintiff is much stronger and her right cannot be seriously challenged. At this stage	 it is desirable to mention one other matter. In the present case the emoluments attached to the office are stated to be the daily and other offerings made to the deity at the worship by the visiting devotees. Both the parties to this case have come up to Court on the common footing that it is this which constitutes the emoluments. Whether and how far such votive offerings can be appropriated by a Pujari for his emoluments if the temple is a public institution	 (i.e.	 not a private family temple) and whether any usage in this behalf is valid is a matter which does not arise before us in this case. In the result	 the appeal must be allowed with costs throughout and the decree of the trial court must be restored.

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 erformed through a competent deputy has been well recognised and it is not contrary to textual Hindu Law nor opposed to public policy. Subject to the proper and efficient discharge 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 husband and to get the duties of the office performed by a substitute except in cases where usage to the contrary is pleaded and established. Quaere: Whether and how far votive offerings can be appropriated by a Pujari for his emoluments if the temple is a public institution	 (i.e.	 not a private family temple) and whether any usage in this behalf is valid. Case law and the relevant texts reviewed. Judgment of the High Court of Patna reversed.