JUDGMENT : 1. The instant revision is directed against the order dated 27.8.2018 passed in Original Suit No.1199 of 2012 which is a suit for cancellation of an agreement to sell and for permanent injunction. 2. By the order impugned, issues No. 3 and 4 framed in the suit have been decided. Issue No. 4 pertains to whether the court fees paid in the suit is proper while the issue no. 3 pertains to the valuation of the suit and as to whether the same was proper or not. 3. It has been held that the court fees paid on the suit is inadequate and that it was liable to be computed in accordance with Section 7 (iv-a) of the Court Fees Act 1870. The court fees of Rs.500/- paid as regards the relief for injunction has been found to be proper. 4. The contention of counsel for the revisionist is that the court fees is liable to be computed in accordance with Section 7 (iv-a) of the Court Fees Act 1870 only where cancellation is sought either of a money decree or of a decree regarding property having a market value or an instrument securing money or other property having value. The court fee in the suit filed by the revisionist which is for cancellation of an agreement to sell, is liable to be computed in accordance with Section 7 (iv-a) of the Act, only if the instruments sought to be cancelled secures money or it secures property having value. Relying upon the decision of this Court in Writ C. No.6629 of 1998, Altaf Hussain Vs. VIth A.D.J. Saharanur, it has been submitted that an agreement to sell is not an instrument securing property and therefore, the impugned order is, vitiated. It only entitles filing of a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party has supported the impugned order and submitted that since the agreement to sell, the instrument in question secured property, the court fees has rightly been ordered to be computed in accordance with Section 7 (iv-a) of the Act. Counsel for the respondent has relied upon the following decisions: I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and perused the record. Counsel for the respondent has relied upon the following decisions: I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and perused the record. At the very outset, it would be relevant to state that the respondents have not been able to show as to why the judgment of this Court in Altaf Hussain (Supra) will not apply to the case at hand. This judgment clearly holds that an agreement to sell is not an instrument securing property. Such being the situation, the court fees in my considered opinion, cannot be computed in accordance with Section 7 (iv-a) of the Court Fees Act. Article 17 (iii) of the Second Schedule to the Court Fees Act on the basis whereof revisionist had computed and paid Court fee in his suit, reads as follows:- (iii) To obtain a declaratory decree where no consequential relief is prayed in any suit, not otherwise provided for by this Act; (a) When the value of the suit or appeal for purposes of jurisdiction does not exceed one thousand rupees; [Thirty rupees]. (iv) [Omitted by U.P. Act XIX of 1938] (b) When such value exceeds one thousand rupees, but does not exceed five thousand rupees; Fifty rupees. (v) [Omitted by U.P. Act XIX of 1938]. (c) When such value exceeds five thousand rupees, but does not exceed ten thousand rupees; and One hundred rupees. (vi) For relief under Section 14 of the Religious Endowments Act, 1863, or under Section 91 or Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (d) when such value exceeds ten thousand rupees : Two hundred rupees. (vii) Every other suit not otherwise provided for by this Act. Provided that in a suit filed before a High Court under its original jurisdiction the fee chargeable in all cases under this article shall be two hundred and fifty rupees. Since there is no specific provision for determining the court fees on a suit for cancellation of an agreement to sell and because in view of what has been stated above, the so called specific provision, namely, Section 7 (iv-a) of the Court Fees Act, as applicable in U.P., is not attracted in the case of an agreement to sell, the court fees paid by the revisionist, computed in accordance with the Article 17 (iii) of the Second Schedule of the Court Fees Act 1870, was correct. In holding to the contrary, the court below has committed a manifest jurisdictional error, requiring interference. 6. Accordingly, the revision is allowed. The order impugned dated 27.8.2019 is hereby, set aside. The matter is remitted back to the trial court to decide Issue Nos. 3 and 4 and others in light of this judgment as also the observations contained therein.