Judgment

KAILASAM, J: - This appeal is by the plaintiff by special leave granted by this Court against the judgement and decree dated 9-2-1968 passed by the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in first appeal No. 2I of 1966* dismissing the suit for specific performance. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 who were minors entered into an agreement on .30-9-1961 through their mother and guardian Smt. Phoolibai with the respondent to purchase a house situated in Thandi Sarak for a sum of Rs. 11,000/-. A sum of Rupees 1000/- was paid as earnest money and the balance was to be paid at the time of the registration of the saledeed. According to the plaintiffs/appellants, the respondent did not carry out their part of the agreement and the appellants filed the present suit for specific performance of the contract on 28-3-1962 in the Court of Additional District Judge, Gwalior. The suit -was decreed on 15-4-1966. The plaintiffs deposited Rs. 10,500/- the balance of the price on 13-7-1966. The respondent appealed to the High Court against the judgement and decree of the trial court which allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit.

* Reported in AIR 1968 Madh. Pra.. 150

2. The High Court agreed with the findings of the trial Court on the merits and found that it was the respondents who committed breach of contract but dismissed the suit on the ground that as the contract was entered on behalf of the minors, a decree for specific performance could not be granted to the appellants for want of mutuality.

3. Mr. Shiv Dayal Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, submitted that the lower court erred in holding that the contract for purchase of property by the guardian on behalf of the minors is unenforceable due to lack of mutuality and submitted that so long as the transaction is for the benefit of the minor, the defendants cannot resist the decree for specific performance.

4. A minor has no legal competence to enter into a contract or authorise someone else on his behalf to enter into a contract. But under the Hindu Law the natural guardian is empowered to enter into a contract on behalf of the minors and the contract would be binding and enforceable if the contract is for the benefit of the minor. One of the earliest cases which dealt with the right of the guardian to enter into a contract on behalf of the minor, is Krishnaswami v. Sundarappayyar, (1894) ILR 18 Mad 415 where a Bench of the Madras High Court held that S. 11 of the Contract Act does not exclude the power of the guardian of a minor to represent him and enter into contracts on his behalf either beneficial or necessary to the minor under Hindu Law and that the English Law that a minor cannot claim specific performance which proceeds on the ground of want of mutuality, has no application to this country. The position under the Hindu Law is that a guardian has legal competence to enter into a contract on behalf of the minor for necessity or for the benefit of the estate. Dr. Chitale, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that he does not dispute the competence of a guardian to enter into a contract on behalf of the minor if it is for necessity or for the benefit of the estate, but contended that the right can only be confined to sale of property and would not extend to the purchase of property. His submission is that regarding the purchase of the property, it involves a minor into an obligation, of making a payment and that it would amount to personal covenant by the guardian binding the minor. In support of his contention, he strongly relied on a decision of the Privy Council in Mir Sarwarjan v. Fakhruddin Mahorned Chowdhury, (1912) ILR 39 Cal 232 which reversed the view of a Bench of the Calcutta High Court which held that there was no want of mutuality in the case and that the agreement is enforceable against the minors and that the acts of the guardian in this country bind the minor though there is no difference between his position and powers and those of a