Note 31 — D

(e) In a certain temple two dancing-girls were dedicated by the Dharmakarta to the services of the temple without the consent of the existing body of dancing-girls, and the suit was instituted against the Dharmakarta and these two Dēva-dāsis, asking that the Court should ascertain and declare the rights of the Dēva-dāsis of the pagoda in regard (1) to the dedication of Dēva-dāsis, (2) to the Dharmakarta’s power to bind and suspend them; and that the Court should ascertain and declare the rights of the plaintiff, the existing Dēva-dāsis, as to the exclusion of all other Dēva-dāsis, 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.31