JUDGMENT

Tudball, J. - This matter comes up before me on the report of the Stamp Officer. The facts are simple. The plaintiffs brought a suit on the following allegations:--Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 contracted to sell to them certain zamindari property for the sum of Rs. 2,900. Of this sum Rs. 100 was paid as earnest money. The defendants Nos. 2 and 3, however, failed to carry out their contract, but instead, they executed a sale-deed in favour of defendant No. 1.. The defendant No. 1 had full knowledge of the contract between plaintiffs and the defendants Nos. 2 and 3. The plaintiffs, therefore, ask for specific performance of the contract including possession of the property. The Court-fee paid in the Courts below was that calculated u/s 7, Clause v, of the Court Fees Act, i.e., as in a suit for possession of land. A second appeal having been preferred by the plaintiffs in this Court the Stamp Officer is of opinion that the plaintiffs should pay Court-fees not only u/s 7, Clause v, but also u/s 7, Clause x.' This is contested by the plaintiffs-appellants. As stated by a Bench of this Court in Muhi-ud-din Ahmad Khan v. Majlis Rai 6 A. 231 : A.W.N. (1884) 42 the suit is in substance o