( 1 ) THIS revision petition raises a question of Court fee. ( 2 ) A few facts may be necessary for the disposal of the same. The plaintiff mesa the suit- out or which was petition , for spection perror inance or properties to the plaintiff for aconciderationof Rs. 35000 by an arengment between thendefendent 1conveveda. item 1 and 3 in flawer or the plaintiff and item 4 in flaver of his mother and field to onvey the other item nemely item 2 the paintiff brought the shout for speine performence of the agrement between him and first defendent and sought the reffer or convenence of the second item. He paid court fee on Rs. 4000 on the basis that the reperesented the amount due by him to deferent. ( 3 ) MR. V. K. Govindarajulu, the; learned Counsel for the plaintiff says that conveyance is sought only in respect of the second item of the properties mentioned in the agreement and he is therefore not bound to pay Court Fee, leviable, on a claim for specific performance of the agreement. His argument is that as the entire: contract is not sought to be performed, the; suit cannot be deemed to be one for specific performance of 'the whole contract but only for performance of conveyance of the second item. He relied upon a decision in R. S. Jhavar v. Thanikachala Grainani (1966) 2 Madlj. 38. In that decision 3,42 (a) of the Madras Court Fees and Suits Valuation act, which is similar to S. 40 (a) of the Act was being considered. The learned Judge distinguished an earlier decision of the Madras High Court rendered by Venkataramana Rao, J. in Gudia Duliabho Sahu v. Cinni adinarayana, AIR. 1937 Mad. 831 and said :" The intention of Sec. 42 (a) of the Madras Court Fees and Suits valuation Act (XIV of 1955) seems to be that' where a party who, has entered into a contract to purchase certain properties is able to ge,t conveyance of a, portion of the, properties only, he can file a suit for specific performance of the unperformed portion of the contract ond can pay Court Fie on it. He is liable to pay Court Fee only on the, value, of the unperformed portion of the contract of which he seeks performed and is not liable to pay Court Fee, on the entire value of the properties covered by the original contract. "the learned Judge appears to have taken this view on the assumption that the word 'computed' occurring in S. 42 (a) of the Madras Act had been introduced for the first time and such a word was not found in S. 7 (x) of the) Court Fees Act (VII of 1870 ). Venkataramana Rao J. in Duliabho sahu's case (2), while considering S. 7 (x) of the Court Fees Act (VII of 1870) held :" There can be no question that so far as a conveyance is sought in favqur of the plaintiff in respect of defendant 2's interest, the suit is essentially one for specific periormance of a contract and Court Fee will have to bet levied under S. 7, Cl (x) Court Fees Act. . . . . The fact that certain properties have been sold by mutual. arrangement will not alter the nature of the claim which is essentially one tor specific performance of contract of sale which is implied in the said arrangement. How, I understand the relief claimed is this: ' T'he plaintiff requests the; Court to give effect to the arrangement which he entered into, but desires thai in effecting the conveyance only the properties described in the schedule should be conveyed and possession in respect thereof should be given. As the Court will in any event have to declare the original arrangement entered into and only on that basis should give the relief to the plaintiff, the suit will have to be valued on the consideration mentioned therein. In a suit for specific performance, the view has always been taken by this Court that there, is no question of primary and secondary relief and both the execution of the conveyance and delivery of possession are essential reliefs. Further, without getting a conveyance it is not possible to get possession. "in my opinion, the leaned Judge in Jhavar's case (1) obviously misread the decision in Dullabho Sahu's case (2) on the assumption that the word 'computed' was not in S. 7 of the Court Fees Act (VII of 1870 ). Mr. Further, without getting a conveyance it is not possible to get possession. "in my opinion, the leaned Judge in Jhavar's case (1) obviously misread the decision in Dullabho Sahu's case (2) on the assumption that the word 'computed' was not in S. 7 of the Court Fees Act (VII of 1870 ). Mr. Govindarajulu also relied upon another decision in Thakur Prahad Singh v Smt Janki Devi , AIR. 1967 Pat. 281. . In that case, the contract had been partly performed and the suit had been instituted for specific performance of the rest. Therein, it was held that on no principle can the plaintiffs be asked to- pay ad valorem court Fee on the full consideration mentioned in the contract as no relief was asked for in respect of the entire property covered by the, contract. This view ignored again the provisions of S. 7 of the Court Fees Act (VII of 1870 ). Therefore, I am not in agreement with the view expressed in the above two cases. ( 4 ) MR. N. Venkatacala,, the learned Govt Advocate on behalf of the the Government and Mr. Pranesha Rao, learned Advocate on behalf of the defendant, relied upon Gudia Dullabho Sahu's case (2) and the decision in s. P. Gupt v. Abdul Rahman, AIR. 1958 All. 851 and contended that the suit essentially being one for specific performance of a contract, Court Fee payable was on the sum agreed to be paid under the original contracts and under s. 40 (a) of the Act the; Court Fee payable, is on the amqunt of consideration mentioned in the; contract. S. 40 (a) of the' Act provides that in a suit for specific performance, fee shall be payable, in the case of a contract of sale, computed on the amount of consideration. There is no ambiguity at all in this provision. In a suit for specific performance, based on a contract of sale, Court Fee has to be computed on the amount of the consideration. That being so, I am eintirely in agreement with the view expressed in Gudia dullabho Sahu' case (1), which has been followed by a Bench decision in Gupta's case (4 ). Therefore, the trial Court was justified in asking the plaintiff to pay Court Fee on the amount of consideration mentioned in the contract. In the result, this revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Therefore, the trial Court was justified in asking the plaintiff to pay Court Fee on the amount of consideration mentioned in the contract. In the result, this revision petition is dismissed. No costs. --- *** --- .