Aravind Kumar, J.

1. Heard Sri Prakash, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Perused the case papers.

2. Petitioner herein has filed a suit seeking specific performance of the contract namely the agreement of sale dated 20-12-2007 contending inter alia that defendant has failed to execute the sale deed as agreed to under the said agreement of sale.

3. Registry of the Trial Court raised an objection with regard to payment of Court fee on the ground that though consideration indicated in the agreement of sale is Two Crore Court fee, valuation has been indicated in the valuation slip is Rs. 2,57,125/- for purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction. The matter came to be posted before Court and after considering the contention raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff, Trial Court upheld the office objection by rejecting the contention of the learned Counsel for the plaintiff by opining that agreement of sale in question does not indicate that plaintiff had agreed to pay one crore or second respondent herein had agreed to pay balance one crore in favour of first defendant. It was also noticed by the Trial Court that there is no reference in the agreement of sale that advance amount having been paid equally by plaintiff and 2nd defendant. Hence, it came to be held by the Trial Court by order dated 5-12-2016 vide Annexure-F that plaintiff is required to pay Court fee on the sale consideration amount specified in the agreement of sale. Same is under challenge in this writ petition.

4. It is the contention of Mr. Prakash, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner/plaintiff that agreement of sale dated 12-12-2007 would clearly indicate that it has been entered into by the petitioner along with 2nd respondent namely 2nd defendant and 1st defendant agreeing thereunder to purchase suit schedule property for a total consideration of Rs. 2 crores. It is contended that plaintiff's claim in the suit for specific performance had been restricted to half share or for a decree being passed against the defendant to execute registered sale deed to the extent of half share in the suit schedule property (which measures 18 guntas) and as such by contending and drawing the attention of the Court to the plaint averments, whereunder it is pleaded that an understanding was entered into between the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 that each of the purchaser would pay half of the total consideration and get executed a registered sale deed for half share of the schedule property from 1st defendant and a such, plaintiff in the instant case was required to pay Court fee only on Rupees one crore only i.e., 50% of the total consideration agreed to be paid by purchaser under the agreement of sale. He would also submit that the expression "total consideration" is not to be found in Section 40(a) of Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 ("KCF and SV" for short) and as such, Court fee paid by the plaintiff is just and proper. He would also submit that under Section 11 of the KCF and SV Act, Court is empowered to recover the Court fee at any stage and in the event of defendants on service of suit summons disputing the fact pleaded in the plaint, Trial Court would definitely have the power to recover or order for payment of deficit Court fee and at the stage of registering the suit, Trial Court could not have called upon the plaintiff to pay the Court fee on the total consideration reflected in the agreement of sale. Fie would also draw the attention of the Court to Section 13 of the KCF and SV Act, to contend that even where plaintiff is called upon to pay deficit Court fee, he has right to relinquish part of the claim, so as to bring plaintiff's claim within the Court fee already paid and as such, he has prayed for order of Trial Court being set aside. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Nagarathna S. Murthy v. Smt. Padma Prakash Shetty, ILR 1996 Kar. 841.

5. Having heard t