JUDGMENT 1. We think the decree of the District Judge is right. 2. The right to collect the melvaram of certain land was granted as service Inam to the father of the 1st defendant, who mortgaged it to the plaintiff and died. The 1st defendant succeeded him as the Temple servant. The present suit is to recover the mortgage debt by sale of the mortgaged property. 3. The question is whether after the death of the mortgagor, whose right to the property ceased with the termination of his service, the mortgaged property can be sold as heritable property because his such has succeeded to duties and emoluments of the office. We think that the remedy against the property mortgaged ceased with the termination of the mortgagors right to the emoluments and cannot be enforced against the property in the hands of his successor even though that successor is his son and inherits the office as such. See Lotlikar v. Wagle I.L.R. 6 B. 596. 4. We, therefore, dismiss the second appeal with costs (two sets-one set for the 1st respondent and the other for the 2nd respondent).