The judgment addresses the enforceability of contracts entered into by minors through their guardians under Hindu law, particularly in relation to immovable property transactions. It clarifies that a guardian who acts within their legal authority can enter into contracts for the benefit or necessity of the minor's estate, and such contracts are valid from their inception. Consequently, these contracts are capable of specific performance by or against the minor, as the guardian's authority supplies the minor's capacity to contract. The court emphasizes that there is no essential distinction between contracts of sale and purchase; both are closely connected to dealings in immovable property and are enforceable if made within the guardian’s scope of authority. The doctrine of mutuality, previously considered a barrier to specific performance in minors' contracts, is now rejected in cases where the guardian acts lawfully for the minor's benefit. The decision underscores that the law recognizes the guardian's competence to bind the minor in transactions for necessity or benefit, and such transactions are enforceable, provided they are within the guardian’s legal powers and for the minor's benefit. The court ultimately allows the appeal, confirming that contracts to purchase immovable property by a competent guardian acting within his authority are specifically enforceable by or against the minor.