JUDGMENT 1. -This appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 10.01.2014 passed by Additional District Judge No.3, Jodhpur, whereby, the judgment and decree dated 28.05.2013 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jodhpur Metropolitan has been upheld. 2. The facts in brief may be noticed thus : the plaintiff filed a suit seeking specific performance of contract dated 13.10.2011 on 26.12.2011 with the averments that by the agreement entered into between the parties for exchange of property, whereby, it was agreed between the parties that the defendant would transfer a house situated near Meratiyo Silavaton Ki Masjid, Jodhpur and Plot No.220 situated at B.J.S. Colony, Jodhpur against property owned by plaintiff being Plot No.856, Sardarpura, Chopasani Road; on payment of consideration of Rs. 25,000/-; an advance of Rs. 6,000/- was paid, balance amount of Rs. 19,000/- was paid on 15.11.2011, however, despite paying the sum of Rs. 19,000/- the document has not been registered and the possession has not been handed over and, therefore, a decree was sought for specific performance of the agreement dated 13.10.2011 for transfer of the properties i.e. house situated near Meratiyo Silavaton Ki Masjid, Jodhpur and Plot No.220 situated at B.J.S. Colony, Jodhpur. 3. A written statement was filed by the defendant and the averments made in the plaint were accepted; however, the trial court by its order dated 20.07.2012 directed the plaintiff to file the market value of the suit property and by order dated 28.07.2012 it came to the conclusion that the valuation of the suit was not proper and, therefore, directed the plaintiff to properly value the suit and produce the same thereafter. 4. The order dated 28.07.2012 was not complied with and it was stated that the compliance of order was not required. 5. The trial court by order dated 28.05.2013 came to the conclusion that suit was not property valued by the plaintiff and despite opportunity to properly value the suit, the plaintiff failed to comply with the said order and, therefore, rejected the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 (b) C.P.C. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed first appeal, wherein, the first appellate court also came to the same conclusion that the suit was not properly valued and dismissed the first appeal. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed first appeal, wherein, the first appellate court also came to the same conclusion that the suit was not properly valued and dismissed the first appeal. 7. It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the suit was valued under Section 40(d) of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1961 ('the Act of 1961') and, therefore, the courts below were not justified in insisting for proper valuation of the suit and dismissing the same under Order 7, Rule 11 (b) C.P.C. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant. 9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant. 9. The relevant portion of the agreement dated 13.10.2011 reads thus:- " bdjkjukek bdjkjukek ,d ge vkt fnukad 13-10-2011 dks ceqdek tks/kiqj 'kgj esa vius fof/kd vf/kdkj ds gd ( VkbZVy ) dh LFkkoj lEifRr ds fofu;e ewY; fodz; dh lafonk ds djkj dk nLrkost rgjhj o rdehy dj nsrs gSa oks ;g gS fd %& 1- ekuflag iq= Jh v[ksflag] tkfr pkSgku jktiwr] fuoklh nsgyh gky fBdkuk ukbZ;ksa dh cxsph ds ihNs iwtk jksVh gkml] pkSikluh jksM+] tks/kiqj ( jkt0 ) ftls vkxs ;gka bdjkjukek esa izFke i{k ds uke ls lEcksf/kr fd;k tk;sxkA ) ,oa 2- Jherh tehyk iRuh Jh v[rj] fuoklh IykWV la[;k 856&,] ljnkjiqjk] pkSikluh jksM+] tks/kiqj jkt0 ftls ;gka vkxs bdjkjukek esa f}rh; i{k ls lEcksf/kr fd;k tk;sxkA 1- fd izFke i{k ds fof/kd vf/kdkj ds gd VkbZVy dh [kjhnlqnk ,oa dCtklqnk LFkkoj izFke lEifRr ,d edku okds esM+rh flykoVku dh efLtn ds ikl] tks/kiqj esa fLFkr gS] ftlds lEcU/k esa gd dh nLrkost (Document of Title) izFke i{k us f}rh; i{k dks cryk, tks izFke i{k ds dCts esa gS] ftlds igpku gsrq lhek,sa mRrj esa Jherh vkeuk iRuh ejgwe vCnqy xQqj dk edku] nf{k.k esa esM+rh flykoV efLtn ls lqukjksa dk ckl esa tkus okyh ldM+h xyh] iwoZ esa jkLrk rFkk if'pe esa jgokl gS rFkk f}rh; lEifRr IykWaV la[;k 220 okds ch0ts0,l0 dkWyksuh] tks/kiqj esa fLFkr gS] ftlds igpku gsrq lhek,sa mRrj esa jkLrk] nf{k.k esa Jh gqdeflag th dh tk;nkn] iwoZ esa Jh dY;k.kflag HkkVh dh tk;nkn rFkk if'pe esa jkLrk gS ftldk uki 60 x 45 QqV gS bu nksuksa LFkkoj lEifRr etdwj dks f}rh; i{k Jherh tehyk ds fof/kd vf/kdkj ds gd dh [kjhnlqnk ,oa dCtklqnk LFkkoj lEifRr IykWaV la[;k 856 tks ljnkjiqjk] pkSikluh jksM+] tks/kiqj ij fLFkr gS ftlds lEcU/k esa gd dh nLrkost (Document of Title) f}rh; i{k us izFke i{k dks cryk, tks ftldh igpku gsrq lhek,sa mRrj esa xyh] nf{k.k esa IykWV la[;k 856 dk v)Z Hkkx] iwoZ esa xyh rFkk if'pe esa 40 QqV dh eq[; lM+d tks okds 'kgj tks/kiqj ds ljnkjiqjk] pkSikluh jksM+ ds mRrj esa ljxjksa ds ckl ds yxh gqbZ txnEck dkWyksuh esa fLFkr gS ds lkFk fodz; fofu;e dk ;g djkj dqy izfrQy ?ku jkf'k ऱ 25]000@& v{kjs iPphl gtkj ek= esa f}rh; i{k izFke i{k dks lank; djsxk ftlesa ls f}rh; i{k us izFke i{k dks crkSj vfxze jkf'k vkt ऱ 6000@& v{kjs N% gtkj :i;s udn lank; dj fn;s gS rFkk 'ks"k jkf'k ऱ 19000@& v{kjs mUuhl gtkj ek= f}rh; i{k izFke i{k dks c,ot jlhn ckn esa viuh lqfo/kk vuqlkj 15-11-2011 rd ;k blls iwoZ lank; djsxk rc 'ks"k jkf'k Hkqxrku dh frfFk ls 20 jkst ds Hkhrj&Hkhrj izFke i{k igys viuh mijksDr nksuksa tk;nkn edku o IykWV f}rh; i{k }kjk cryk;s eqrkfcd O;fDr ;k O;fDr;ksa ds i{k esa fodz; i= lacaf/kr lc jftLV~kj ( iath;u ) tks/kiqj ds le{k mifLFkr jgdj jftLV~h rLnhd djokus ,oa jftLV~h djokus ls iwoZ mijksDr tk;nkn dk [kkyh dCtk lkSaius dk djkj djrk gS] fdUrq jftLV~h esa gksus okyk lEiw.kZ [kpkZ f}rh; i{k ogu djsxk tks nksuksa i{kdkjku dks eatwj gSA 2- ;g gS fd izFke i{k }kjk f}rh; i{k ls mDr 'ks"k jkf'k izkIr dj ysus ij ,oa f}rh; i{k ds dgs vuqlkj viuh mijksDr tk;nkn dk cspku foys[k lc&jftLV~kj iath;u dk;kZy; tks/kiqj esa mifLFkr gksdj fu"ikfnr o rLnhd djokus ,oa dCtk lkSaius ds i'pkr~ f}rh; i{k Hkh viuh mijksDr LFkkoj lEifRr dk jftLV~hdj.k izFke i{k ds cryk;s vuqlkj lc jftLV~kj ( iath;u ) tks/kiqj dk;kZy; esa rLnhd djok;sxk vkSj dCtk lkSaisxk fdUrq bl jftLV~h esa gksus okyk leLr [kpkZ izFke i{k ogu djsxkA " (Emphasis Supplied) 10. A bare perusal of the extract (supra) would reveal that opening words of the agreement indicate that the document executed was agreement to 'sale on exchange price' and the parties allegedly agreed to 'sale exchange' for a consideration of Rs. 25,000/-. Two properties belonging to Man Singh, one property belonging to Smt. Jamila and, from which, Rs. 6,000/- was paid in cash and Rs. 19,000/- was to be paid by 15.11.2011; where after, the registration was required to take place. Further, interestingly, the agreement provides for execution of sale deeds in favour of any person as directed by either of the parties.Section 118 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ('TP Act') defines exchange and the same reads as under:- "118. "Exchange" defined. - When two persons mutually transfer the ownership of one thing for the ownership of another, neither thing or both things being money only, the transaction is called an "exchange". A transfer of property in completion of an exchange can be made only in manner provided for the transfer of such property by sale." 11. The definition necessarily means a mutual transfer of ownership between two persons. In the present case, the very fact that the parties have agreed for execution of the sale in favour of anyone indicated by the parties necessarily means that the document was not of exchange. 12. Besides the above, Section 40(d) of the Act of 1961 provides thus:- "40. Suit for specific performance. - In a suit for specific performance, whether with or without possession, fee shall be payable - (a) ..... (b) ..... (c) ..... (d) in the case of contract of exchange, computed on the amount of the consideration, or as the case may be, on the market value of the property sought to be taken in exchange." 13. A bare reading of the said provision would reveal that the court fees is required to be paid in a suit for specific performance in the case of contract of exchange after computing the same on the amount of the consideration or the case may be on the market value of the property sought to be taken in exchange. The terms 'amount of consideration' and 'on the market value of the property sought to be taken in exchange' are very clear and unambiguous. The terms 'amount of consideration' and 'on the market value of the property sought to be taken in exchange' are very clear and unambiguous. The consideration for a party in exchange would always be the valuation of the property, which he is to get in exchange for his property. 14. In the present case, the prayer made in the suit was execution of sale deeds of the house situated near Meratiyo Silavaton Ki Masjid, Jodhpur and Plot No.220 situated at B.J.S. Colony, Jodhpur, which essentially is the consideration for the plaintiff. The fact that in the agreement, it was indicated that the exchange agreement was for a consideration of Rs. 25,000/- merely means that in the property for exchange between the parties, the properties owned by Smt. Jamila was deficient by Rs. 25,000/- and the same was essentially not the consideration of the agreement. Merely writing the same as the consideration is wholly meaningless and cannot bind the Court regarding the valuation of the suit for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction etc. 15. In view of the above, it is apparent that the trial court/appellate court was justified in insisting for disclosure of the proper valuation of the suit and was also justified in directing the plaintiff to correct the valuation and on his failure to comply with the order was justified in rejecting the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 (b) C.P.C.Consequently, there is no substance in the appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******