( 1 ) THIS appeal has been filed by the plaintiff-appellants against the judgment passed by the Addl. District Judge, Vidisha, in Original Suit No. 2-A of 1968 wherein the plaintiff-appellants' suit was dismissed. The plaintiff-appellants filed the present suit for specific performance of contract for sale in respect of immovable property. The contract initially was executed by Prembai (since deceased) sister of respondent No. 1 and this contract was in favour of appellant no. 1 minor through next friend his lather appellant No. 2. The properties included agricultural land and a house for Rs. 11,000/-, out of which Rs. 2,000/were paid in advance and Rs. 9,000/- were to be paid at the time of the sale. This contract was executed in writing and was registered on 25th October 1966. After the suit was filed the respondent defendants contested the suit on the ground that there was no privity of contract between him and the minor, but this plea raised by the defendant-respondent was interpreted by the learned trial Court as want of mutuality between the contracting parties as one of the contracting party was minor and on that ground applying Section 22 of the Sepcific Relief Act dismissed the suit on preliminary question and hence this appeal.

( 2 ) TWO issues were framed by the learned trial Court:- (1) Whether there was privity of contract between the deceased Prembai and the minor plaintiff and if, so, is the plaintiff entitled to file the present suit ? (2) Has the plaintiff-guardian of the minor obtained permission from the district Judge for acquiring this property for the benefit of the minor ? the learned trial Court found both the issues against the plaintiff-appellants and dismissed the suit.

( 3 ) AS regards the second issue about obtaining permission from the District Court both the sides frankly conceded before us that this view taken by the learned courts below is absolutely unjustified. There is no question of obtaining permission of the District Court for the father guardian of minor plaintiff to acquire property for the benefit of the minor. Apparently, there is no such law where such permission was necessary when a father-guardian acquires property for the benefit of his minor son. Consequently, the decision on this issue of the learned courts below cannot be maintained.

( 4 ) AS regards the question of mutuality, it is also strange that after the amendment of the Specific Relief Act still the learned trial Court went on discussing the question under Section 22 of the old Specific Relief Act, and various decisions under that provision about the doctrine of mutuality. Both the learned counsel frankly conceded that it appears that the counsel of both sides as well as the learned Judge of the trial Court lost sight of the fact that the Specific Relief Act has been amended and old Section 22 wherein the doctrine of mutuality had created a lot of controversy has not been incorporated in the new Act. Not only that under the new Act Section 20 (4) provides:--

"20. Discretion as to decreeing specific performance- (1 ). . . (2 ). . . (3 ). . . (4) The Court shall not refuse to any party specific performance of a contract merely on the ground that the contract is not enforceable at the instance of the other party. "

By adding this provision it has been specifically provided that merely on the ground that the contract is not enforceable at the instance of the other party specific performance cannot be refused. This new Specific Relief Act was enacted in the year 1963 and was published in the Gazette of India after the assent of the president on 13th December, 1963. The Act came into force on 1st March, 1964 vide notification No. S. O. 189 dated 13-1-1964, published in the Gazette of India, dated 18-1-1964, Part II, Section 3 (ii), Page 214. The contract in question was executed on 25th October, 1966, and the suit for enforcement of the contract was filed on July 1, 1968. Apparently, therefore, it was the Act of 1963 whi