( 1 ) IT is not disputed before us that the property in question was an ancestral property and that defendants Nos. 1 to 6 viz. present respondents Nos. 1 to 6 had interest therein. It is also not disputed that on the day of the suit contract the respondents Nos. 5 and 6 were minors and that Monghiben as the mother and guardian of the minors had executed an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff. It is also not disputed that respondent No. 1 being the eldest male member of the joint Hindu family was managing the same as a Karta of the said family. The pertinent question therefore which arises for our consideration is-whether the suit contract of sale could be specifically enforced against the defendants and particularly against minor defendants. In the instant case defendant No. 1 Dolatsinh Balubhai Ex. 53 had admitted in his cross-examination that from the amount received by sale of the suit property they had spent for the marriage of his brother Ramesh that they had also spent some amount to pay of the debt incurred for marriage of Dinesh which had taken place in 1964. He had also admitted that he had no other source to meet these liabilities except the sale o