1. The defendants Nos. 1 to 4 entered into a contract with the plaintiff to sell him certain lands for Rs. 1,400. He brings the suit to enforce specific performance. The Courts below have dismissed the suit. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 were minors and the contract was entered into on their behalf by the first defendant as their guardian. It is found that the contract was not for purposes binding on the minors and therefore no specific performance could be decreed against their interests in the properties. The contract being one and indivisible the Courts below have dismissed the suit even against defendants Nos. 1 and 4. In second appeal the plaintiff asks for a decree against the shares of the 1st and 4th defendants at least. This, we think, he cannot have. Section 17 of the Specific Relief Act is against him. Sections 14, 15 and 16 of the Act do not enable the contract to be separated as regards the 1st and 4th defendants in this case. The plaintiff relies on the decision in Gurusamy v. Ganapathiah I.L.R. (1882) M. 337. The contract in that case was before the Specific Relief Act. The decree, therefore, which the Court felt itself competent to make at page 344 of the report w