(d) The plaintiff, a Deva-dasi, complained that, when she brought offerings according to custom and placed them before the God at a certain festival, and asked the Archakas (officiating priests) to present the offerings to the God, burn incense, and then distribute them, they refused to take the offerings on the ground that the Deva-dasi had gone to a Komati's house to dance. She claimed damages, Rs. 10, for the rejected offerings, and Rs. 40 for loss of honour, and a perpetual injunction to allow her to perform the mantapa hadi (sacrifice) at the Chittrai Vasanta festival. The priests pleaded that the dancing-girl had, for her bad conduct in having danced at a Komati's house, and subsequently refused to expiate the deed by drinking panchagavyan (five products of the cow) according to the shastras, been expelled both from her caste and from the temple. [74] (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 Deva-dasis, asking that the Court should ascertain and declare the rights of the Deva-dasis of the pagoda in regard (1) to the dedication of Deva-dasis, (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 Deva-dasis, as to the exclusion of all other Deva-dasis, save those who are related to or adopted by some one of the Deva-dasis for the time being, or those who, being approved by all, are elected and proposed to the Dharmakarta for dedication. That the new Dasis may be declared to have been improperly dedicated, and not entitled to any of the rights of Deva-dasis, and restrained from attending the pagoda in that character, and from interfering with the duly dedicated Deva-dasis in the exercise of their office. That first defendant be restrained from stamping and dedicating other Deva-dasis 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. [75]