1. The question for decision in these cases is whether the plaintiff's cause of action against the 1st defendant survived upon 1st defendant's death against the 2nd defendant, who succeeded him in the office of pedda jaiyyangar. The action was one to recover compensation for loss of income, and for expenses caused to the temple by the 1st defendant's alleged refusal to give up the keys of the temple and have worship duly performed therein. Whether this misconduct on the part of the 1st defendant be regarded as a tort or as a breach of contract of personal service, in neither case do we think that the cause of action survives against his representative, for the reason that the misconduct was one purely personal to the 1st defendant and did not in any way benefit his estate. (Haridas Ramdas v. Belindas Mathuradas, I. L. R., 13 B., 677 and Kirk v. Todd, 21 Ch. D. 484 ) It has not boon found that the 1st defendant left any personal assets, and it is clear from the evidence of the plaintiff's 15th witness that he left none. So that even if 1st defendant's estate had' been liable to the claim, there would have been no foundation for a decree against the 2nd defendant. For both these reasons we reverse the decrees of the Courts below and dismiss the suit with costs throughout.