JUDGMENT A. Banerji , J. - This appeal has been filed against an order dated 7.9.1978 passed by Judge, Small Cause Court, Moradabad, directing the plaintiff appellant to pay additional court fees on Rs. 85.000/-. In other words, the appellant had been directed to make good the deficiency. It is thus an appeal under-Sec. 6-A of the U.P. Court Fees Act. 2. Admittedly, an agreement was entered into between the parties for conveyance of certain immovable property for a sum of Rs. 85,000/-. It was alleged in the plaint that the entire land belonged to the plaintiff appellant and his brother and he had entered into an agreement on behalf of his brother as well, but subsequent to the execution of the agreement, the brother had disposed of his half share of the immovable property. The plaintiff-appellant, therefore, valued the suit at Rs. 42,500/- and chose today court fees thereon. An objection was taken by the defendant-respondent that proper court fees had not been paid and the appellant was liable to pay court fees not on Rs. 42,500/- but on the entire sum which formed the subject matter of the agreement viz., Rs. 85,000/-. An issue was struck on the point and the learned Judge, Small Cause Court by his decision held that there was deficiency in court fees and the appellant was liable to pay court, fees on Rs. 85,000/-. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that in effect there were two agreements, one with the appellant and another with his brother and therefore the appellant could enforce his rights under the agreement with him. And as such he was liable to pay court-fees only on the valuation of the property which was now in dispute. This contention is not acceptable to us. Undoubtedly the agreement in this case was for the transfer of specific area of Bhumidhari property valued at Rs. 85,000/-. No assertion seems to have been made that there were two separate agreement viz.. between the defendant and the plaintiff and one with plaintiff's brother. The evidence on the record shows that only one agreement was executed between the parties and further that the brother of the appellant had not executed any agreement. Then there was a change of stance and it was urged that the appellant was acting on behalf of his brother. between the defendant and the plaintiff and one with plaintiff's brother. The evidence on the record shows that only one agreement was executed between the parties and further that the brother of the appellant had not executed any agreement. Then there was a change of stance and it was urged that the appellant was acting on behalf of his brother. In this view of the matter it is evident that there was only one agreement with the defendant. Thus, the contention to the contrary by the counsel for the plaintiff is without substance. 4. It would be another question as to what relief can be granted. Whether the relief should be in respect of the property involved in the agreement or in respect of a part of the property ? This question has been decided by the court below and in our opinion, correctly. A perusal of Sec. 7 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, shows that it lays down the mode of computing the value of certain types of suits. Sub-sec. (x) (a) pertains to the valuation of suits for specific performance of contract of sale. The sub-section records that it shall be according to the amount of consideration. 5. The above provision is clear. The valuation of the suit will be based on the amount of consideration. It is not based on what the plaintiff claims by way of relief in the suit. The value for the purpose of the court fees will be the same as the consideration mentioned in the agreement for sale. 6. In the present case, there is no doubt that Rs. 85,000/- was shown as the consideration. This would, therefore, be the amount on which court-fee has to be paid. It will not be based on the share of the party in the property. The contention that since the appellant had only a half share in the property involved in the agreement is not the correct basis for valuing the suit. In our opinion, the view taken by the court below is in accordance with law and does not call for any interference. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed but we leave the parties to bear their own costs in this appeal.