In a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale, the court-fee payable is under Section 7(x)(a), Court-fees Act, and it would make no difference simply because there was a prayer for possession.

Lakshmikanta Jha, J.

1. This application in revision is by the plaintiffs. The suit giving rise to this application was for specific performance of a contract of sale of certain land and for possession thereof with mesne profits from the date of the institution of the suit.

2. The plaintiffs case, in short, is that the defendants first party entered into an agreement in writing and contracted to sell to them the land in dispute by a certain date for a consideration of Rs. 1700.00 but they did not perform the contract and sold the land to the defendant second party and put him into possession thereof. On these allegations the suit was instituted in the court of the 2nd Munsif at Bhagalpur, the pecuniary limit of whose juris-diction was Rs. 2000/-.

3. The suit was valued at Rs. 1709/-, the amount of the consideration money, and court-fee was. paid thereon under Section 7(x)(a), Court-fees Act. It may be stated that this amount was also the value for the purpose of jurisdiction under Section 8, Suits Valuation Act.

4. There was a dispute as regards the amount of court-fee payable on the plaint. The contention of the defendants was that the suit should be valued according to the market value of the property under Section 7(v), Court-fees Act, The plaintiffs, on the other hand, urged that the suit should be valued at the amount of the consideration money under Section 7(x)(a), Court-fees Act, and that the court-fee paid was sufficient. The learned Munsif overruled the contention of the plaintiffs and held that the value of the suit for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction should be the market value of the land in suit. He accordingly held an enquiry and having found that the value of the land in suit was in excess of Rs. 2000/-, the limit of his pecuniary jurisdiction, returned the plaint for presentation to the proper court. Thereupon the plaintiffs preferred an appeal to the District Judge. The learned Additional District Judge, before whom the appeal came up for hearing, upheld the view of the learned Munsif but remanded the case directing the learned Munsif to give a clear finding as to the market value of the land in dispute. The plaintiffs have, therefore, come up to this Court in revision.

5. The case came up for hearing before a single judge of this Court, who has, on account of the importance of the question raised before him, referred it to a division bench and it has now come before us for hearing.

6. The question for decision is whether the court-fee on the plaint is payable according to the amount of the consideration under Section 7(x) (a) or on the amount at which the court may estimate the land with reference to the value of similar land in the neighbourhood under S, 7(v)(c), Court-fees Act, that is, on the market value of the land,

7. The contention of the defendants is that the property having passed into the hands of the defendant second party, who was not a party to the contract, the suit is, in substance, one for possession and mesne profits and ought to be valued under Section 7(v), Court-fees Act, at the market value of the land, and in support of this contention they have strongly relied on the case of -- Madan Mohan V/s. Gaja Prosad, 14 Cal LJ 159, and on a single Judge decision. of this Court in -- Rambahadur V/s. Banwari Lal, AIR 1929 Pat 642. The plaintiffs, on the other hand, maintain that the suit is for specific performance of a contract, pure and simple, even though there is a claim for possession and mesne profits, and the court-fee paid is sufficient because it falls under Section 7(x)(a), Court-fees Act, which specifically provides for suits for specific performance of contract of sale and states that the court-fee payable in the case of such a suit would be according to the amount of consideration, and in support of their contention they rely upon an unreported decision of this Court -- Chander Sekhar Pra-sad Singh v, Mt. Ramdhan Kuer, Civil Revn. No. 270 of 1925, D/- 22-10-1925 (Pa