Order. — This is an appeal against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam, remanding the suit to the trial Court. The material facts may be briefly stated: — The plaintiff sold the suit properties to the defendant on 13th March, 1947, for a stated consideration of Rs. 5,500. Alleging that the consideration actually paid was only Rs. 3,000 and there was an agreement for reconveyance of these properties entered into on the same date for this sum of Rs. 3,000 the plaintiff filed the suit which gives rise to this appeal in the Court of the District Munsif of Srikakulam for specific performance of that agreement of sale. He valued the suit under section 7, clause (x) of the Court-Fees Act at Rs. 639-1-9 and paid court-fee of Rs. 71-15-0. One of the defences to the suit was that it was undervalued and court-fee should have been paid on the sum of Rs. 3,000 said to be the consideration for the reconveyance of the properties. Agreeing with this, the trial Court called upon the plaintiff to pay the deficit court-fee and gave him time on 27th October, 1950, till 6th November, 1950. This was extended up to 15th November, 1950. As further time was asked for again on 15th November, 1950, the trial Court refused to comply with it and dismissed the suit for non-payment of the deficit court-fee. The matter was taken in appeal and the main grounds urged in support of the appeal were that as time was granted for payment of court-fee till 15th November, 1950, and since he had time till the evening to pay the court-fee, the suit could not be dismissed earlier in the day and the court-fee as originally paid by him was correct. The appeal was opposed on the grounds that the correctness of the order of the trial Court on the question of court-fee could not be canvassed in appeal as it had become final and that under section 12 of the Court-Fees Act, the question of computation cannot be gone into by the appellate Court. Alternatively, it was contended that the proper court-fee payable is on Rs. 5,500 and not on Rs. 3,000. Alternatively, it was contended that the proper court-fee payable is on Rs. 5,500 and not on Rs. 3,000. The appellate Court accepted the contention of the plaintiff that the tria Court had no jurisdiction to dismiss the suit earlier in the day on 15th November, 1950, when he had time to pay deficit court-fee till the evening. It also held that the plaintiffs could question the order, dated 27th October, 1950, in O.S. No. 165 of 1950, determining the court-fee in the appellate Court. It further found that the court-fee payable is on Rs. 5,500 being the amount of consideration recited in the sale deed by the plaintiff to the defendant. And for this view reliance was placed by the Subordinate Judge on a Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Madana Mohana v. Krupa Sindhu1. In the result he set aside the order of the trial Court but directed the plaintiff to pay court-fee on Rs. 5,500. In that view, he remanded the case to the trial Court for further disposal. There is also a direction to the trial Court to decide the question of pecuniary jurisdiction. The plaintiff who was called upon to pay higher court-fee has preferred this appeal. It is contended by Mr. Narasayya in support of this appeal that under section 7, clause (x) of the Court-fees Act the court-fee payable is only on the amount of consideration agreed to be paid for the resale and not the original consideration stated to have been paid to him under the original sale by him to the defendant. In reply to this Mr. Sivaprasadarao argues that the decision referred to by the lower appellate Court supports its view and therefore the appellant has to pay court-fee on the consideration stated in the sale deed. I do not think I can agree with the proposition of the counsel for the respondent. The terms of section 7, clause (x) are clear that the court-fee is to be paid according to the amount agreed to be secured under the suit contract. In this case the amount agreed is Rs. 3,000 and the sale consideration for the earlier sale has no bearing. We are not now concerned with the truth or otherwise of the averments of the plaint. It is the recitals in the plaint that should determine the question of court-fee. In this case the amount agreed is Rs. 3,000 and the sale consideration for the earlier sale has no bearing. We are not now concerned with the truth or otherwise of the averments of the plaint. It is the recitals in the plaint that should determine the question of court-fee. The decision in Madana Mohana v. Krupa Sindhu1 has no application to the present case. In the circumstances, I must therefore give effect to the contention of the appellant and hold that the appropriate court-fee is payable on Rs. 3,000 and not Rs. 5,500. The appeal is therefore allowed but in the circumstances of this case, I direct the parties to bear their own costs both here and in the lower appellate Court. D.L.N. ------- Appeal allowed.