Note 32 — D

(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 which she claimed the monopoly for herself and the then existing families of dancing-girls. The District Judge dismissed the suit, but the High Court ordered a re-investigation as to the question of the existence of an hereditary office with endowments or emoluments attached to it.32