1. The real question in this case is whether the learned Munsif before whom the present petitioners instituted the suit for ejectment against the opposite parties was right in holding that the plaintiffs were liable to pay ad valorem court-fees on the sum of Rs. 12,000/. It appears that after his direction to the plaintiffs to pay the deficit court-fees, the plaintiffs did not pay the same and he ordered the plaint to be rejected. The plaintiffs' appeal was summarily dismissed by the learned Judge. The plaintiffs' case in the plaint is that the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were residing with the leave and license of the plaintiffs in the suit premises along with plaintiffs and their mother, that this license has been revoked by the plaintiffs, but the defendants were still continuing to occupy the said premises. As originally framed, the plaintiffs' prayer in the plaint was for a declaration of their title to the land and for delivery of khas possession to the plaintiffs on eviction of the defendants. The plaint was, however, amended and the prayer portion modified. After amendment the plaintiffs' prayer is merely for a decree for possession of the land on eviction of the defen