The doctrine of mutuality does not apply to contracts involving minors if the contract is within the competence of the guardian and for the benefit of the minor.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the defendant against the judgment and decree of affirmance granting specific performance of a contract of purchase in favour of two minors entered into through their guardian.

( 2 ) THE admitted facts are that the plaintiffs are heirs of one Kudiram Das who died on July 1, 1961. To meet the expenses of his Sradh, the plaintiffs sold the suit property to the defendant by a deed executed on July 9, 1961 on receipt of Rs. 1,699/- as consideration. The deed was registered on July 11, 1961, on which day the defendant agreed by another deed to reconvey in favour of the plaintiffs the property on receipt of the said amount of Rs. 1,699/- within July, 1965. The defendant was thereafter repeatedly asked to convey the property to the plaintiff but the defendant failed and neglected to reconvey the property in breach of the contract although the plaintiffs were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. The plaintiffs in the circumstances instituted the suit on April 9, 1963, praying for decree for specific performance of the said contract. It may be mentioned that the plaintiffs Nos. 4 and 5, minor daughters of late Kudiram Das were represented by their guardian mother in the said sale and the contract was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiffs including the said minors represented by their guardian mother as aforesaid. The defence in so far as it is material in this appeal, was that the plaintiffs were not entitled to enforce performance of the contract as some of the plaintiffs, being parties to the agreement, were minors. The contract for purchase, it was contended, was not enforceable in law by the minors as there was no mutuality in such contract. Further, the contract was not warranted by Section 8 (1) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.

( 3 ) THE suit was tried on evidence before the learned Munsif, who on a consideration of the judicial decisions, held that the doctrine of mutuality of contract has since lost its importance as such contracts are enforceable if it is one within the competence of the guardian and is for the benefit of the minor. The learned Munsif also found that property admittedly worth about Rs. 3,500/- was sold to the defendant to meet an emergency at a low price. The contract for getting back the property was for the benefit of the minor and there was no evidence that the purchase of the property would bind the estate of the minors. The court further found that the contract under consideration is authorized by Section 8 (1) of the Hindu Guardians and Wards Act, 1956. On merits the court also found that the plaintiffs were entitled to the specific performance of contract as prayed for. The suit was accordingly decreed.

( 4 ) AN appeal was taken by the defendant therefrom and the appellate court found that the contract was a joint one and could not be split between major and minor promises; further, the defendant having purchased the minors' shares also and taken the benefit of the sale couldnot be allowed to resile by repudiating the contract on ground of lack of mutuality; and section 18 (1) of the Hindu Guardians and Wards Act was no bar to the enforceability of the contract and the later judicial decisions recognized partial exception of the doctrine of mutuality covering the agreement in suit. On merits also it was found that the plaintiffs were entitled to enforce the contract. The appeal accordingly was dismissed and the present appeal is by the defendant against the said appellate decision.

( 5 ) THE reliefs under the Specific Relief Acts are discretionary and may be refused in appropriate cases. In the present case, the defendant acquired the suit property admittedly at much lesser value than the market price. With the motive to retain the unfair advantage, he has been trying to wriggle out of the agreement for reconveyance by taking his stand on technical and legal objections. In equity therefore has no c