( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 23-11-2004 passed in OS (SR) No. 8795 of 2004 on the file of Principal District Judge, Ranga reddy District in returning the plaint filed for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 10-2-1994.

( 2 ) THE petitioner herein is the plaintiff and he instituted the above suit against the respondents-defendants for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 10-2-1994 entered into with Defendants 1 to 5 for the sale of agricultural land measuring Ac. 0-38 guntas, in Sy. No. 110, Ac. 1-14 guntas in sy. No. 115, Ac. 1-21 guntas in Sy. No. 116, and Ac. 0-26 guntas in Sy. No. 118, total admeasuring Ac. 4-19 guntas, situated at hydernagar Village, Balangar Mandal, Ranga reddy District. In the plaint it is alleged that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and after execution of the agreement of sale and after receipt of total sale consideration of rs. 12 lakhs on various dates as mentioned in the plaint, the heirs of late Fathima Bee i. e. , Defendants 1 to 6 and the heirs of late syed Abdul Quader i. e. , Defendants 7 to 9 are postponing the execution and registration of sale deed on one pretext or the other with a dishonest intention to make unlawful gain against the plaintiff. It is alleged that after receipt of legal notice dated 26-1-2004 got issued by the plaintiff, it came to light Defendants 4 and 6 have executed the sale deed dated 30-4-2003 in favour of Defendant No. 10 in respect of an extent of Ac. 0. 11. 74 guntas in Sy. No. 110 and so also Defendants, 1, 3, 4 and 6 executed an agreement of sale-cum-GPA dated 4-4-2003 in favour of Defendant no. 10 in respect of another extent of ac. 0. 26 guntas in Sy. No. 118, which lands are subject-matter of agreement of sale dated 10-2-1994. In view of the same, Defendant no. 10 was also impleaded in the suit.

( 3 ) THE plaint was returned by the office of the Court below with the following objections: (1) How the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance in respect of suit schedule property with seeking the declaration that the Defendants 4 and 6 executed registered sale deed in favour of Defendant No. 10 and execution of GPA-cum-agreement of sale in favour of Defendant No. 10? (2) How the suit is within time? on being re-presented the plaint, the Court beiow passed the impugned order.

( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner plaintiff contends that in a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale, the relief also can be claimed against a subsequent purchaser, who is in possession of the suit property without seeking any declaration for cancellation of sale deed and the claim falls under Section 19 (b) of the Specific Relief Act (for short "the Act" ). He further submits that return of the plaint by the Court below with the objection that unless the petitioner seeks the relief of cancellation of sale deed executed by defendants in favour of Defendant No. 10, the relief cannot be granted, is not justified. In support of his submission, he relics upon the following judgments: Suryakantamma v. Venkatachalam, AIR 1966 AP 110 (V 53 c. 37 ). Durga Prasad v. Deep Chand, AIR 1954 SC 75 (V. 41, C. N. 22), and Ramji lal v. Ram Pershad, AIR 1979 Delhi 129.

( 5 ) THIS Court in the case of curyakantamma (supra) held that when [here is an allegation in the plaint that agreement to sell is obtained collusively to defeat the plaintiff s rights under the agreement to sell executed, the said allegation really brings, the case under section 27 (b) of the Act (old) corresponding to Section 19-B of the Act (new), which states that specific performance of a contract may be enforced against any person claiming under the original vendor arising subsequently to the contract, except a transferee for value who has paid his money in good faith and without notice of the original contract. There cannot be any doubt that specific performance can be asked for and granted