TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Hindu Woman Inherits Priestly Office: Supreme Court Upholds Female Succession</h1> <h3>Raj Kali Kuer Versus Ram Rattan Pandey</h3> Raj Kali Kuer Versus Ram Rattan Pandey - TMI Issues Involved:1. Legitimacy of the plaintiff's marriage.2. Division of the office of Pujari and Panda.3. Inheritance of the priestly office by a female.Detailed Analysis:1. Legitimacy of the Plaintiff's Marriage:The defendant contested the legitimacy of the plaintiff's marriage to his deceased brother, Rambeyas Pande, asserting that she was not the legally wedded wife. Both the trial court and the first appellate court found against the defendant on this issue, and these findings became conclusive.2. Division of the Office of Pujari and Panda:The defendant claimed that there had been a division of the office of Pujari and Panda between him and his brother, with the office at Arrah temple assigned to him and the office at Gangipul temple assigned to the plaintiff's husband. The courts found against the defendant on this issue as well, affirming that the duties and emoluments were jointly enjoyed by the defendant and his deceased brother.3. Inheritance of the Priestly Office by a Female:The central issue was whether a Hindu female could inherit the hereditary priestly office of a Pujari and Panda and receive the associated emoluments. The defendant argued that the plaintiff, being a female, was not entitled to inherit the office or perform its duties, either personally or through a deputy, citing custom, usage, and Sastras.Trial Court's Finding:The trial court rejected the defendant's contention, stating, 'No authority has been cited nor any custom proved to show that female cannot inherit a property of this nature.'First Appellate Court's Affirmation:The first appellate court affirmed this view, noting, 'There is nothing to show that by reason of her sex she is debarred from holding this office either by religion, custom or usage.'High Court's Judgment:The High Court, however, held 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.' They did, however, recognize her right to be maintained out of the estate of her husband, which included the emoluments attached to the priestly office, and decreed that she was entitled to receive half the amount of the offerings in lieu of her maintenance.Supreme Court's Analysis:The Supreme Court examined whether a Hindu female could succeed to a hereditary religious office and found that religious offices can be hereditary and are considered property under Hindu Law. The court referenced multiple precedents, including cases recognizing Shebaitship as property and the right of females to succeed to such offices. The court emphasized that while the office involves substantial duties, these can be discharged by a competent deputy if the office holder is personally disqualified.The court noted that historical and textual evidence, including passages from the Brihan-Naradiya Purana and the Manu Smriti, indicated that females were traditionally disqualified from performing certain religious duties. However, it also recognized that the practice of hereditary priestly functions being performed by substitutes had become well-established.Precedents and Custom:The court reviewed various decisions from different High Courts, including the Madras High Court, which had consistently recognized the right of females to succeed to religious offices and get the duties performed by proxies. The court also noted that the practice of female succession to priestly offices was common and well-recognized in other regions, including Bengal and Bihar.Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to succeed to the hereditary office of Pujari and Panda held by her husband and to get the duties of the office performed by a competent substitute. The court restored the trial court's decree, allowing the plaintiff's claim and awarding her costs throughout.Final Judgment:The appeal was allowed, and the decree of the trial court was restored, recognizing the plaintiff's right to half share in the office and recovery of mesne profits on that footing.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
