T GANGADHARASWAMY Vs. SETH DOWLATRAM MOHANDAS

JUDGEMENT

(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 :