ORDER : S. Rajendra Babu, J. A suit for specific performance was brought in forma pauperis by the appellants. The suit was decreed by the trial court and on appeal by the defendants in the suit, the decree of the trial court was modified by directing the appellants to pay a sum of Rs 5484 instead of Rs 1324 to the defendants at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed. 2. When the matter was carried in second appeal, the High Court took the view that the first appellant had attained majority when the suit was filed and the second appellant was still a minor but neither of them had any means other than those disclosed in their application to sue in forma pauperis and which clearly indicated that they did not have even sufficient means for payment of the court fee amounting to Rs. 957.50p. on the plaint. In that situation, the Court proceeded on the basis that the first appellant was not capable of performing his part of the contract in terms of Section 16(b) of the Specific Relief Act, and, therefore, set aside the decree as affirmed by the appellate court and dismissed the suit. This view is assailed before us. 3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant relied upon a decision of this Court in Surya Narain Upadhyaya v. Ram Roop Pandey, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 542, and contended that mere failure to pay court fee would not render a suit filed for specific performance infructuous but on the other hand an inference of incapacity to pay consideration and thereby to refuse the relief of specific performance on such ground would not be appropriate. In that decision, the facts were that the suit had not been filed in forma pauperis but on the other hand sufficient court fee had not been paid on the date of presenting the plaint and that definitely was not paid for quite some time and, thereafter was made good and the averments in the plaint clearly indicated that the appellant therein had the capacity to perform his part of the contract. It is on that basis this Court held that any deficiency in payment of court fee at one stage will not disentitle him to pursue the suit for specific performance, but, that is not the position in the present case at all. It is on that basis this Court held that any deficiency in payment of court fee at one stage will not disentitle him to pursue the suit for specific performance, but, that is not the position in the present case at all. In the application filed by the appellants to pursue the suit in forma pauperis, it is averred that they have no means except those which had been disclosed in the course of that application, which clearly indicated that they were not capable of paying the court fee which is less than Rs. 1000 whereas the consideration that was to be paid as per the suit agreement dated 8-12-1952 was Rs. 8000. 4. In the circumstances, the view taken by the High Court cannot be faulted with. 5. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.