Maclean, C.J:— The question submitted to us is: “Can specific performance of a contract validly entered into on behalf of a minor be enforced?” This is a wide and far-reaching question, and as we cannot deal with the facts of this case, it is not open to us to say anything as to the validity of the contract in the case. I think we can only answer the question by saying that, if a contract is validly entered into on behalf of a minor, and there is mutuality in such contract it might be specifically enforced. Each case must depend upon its own particular circumstances, and it is difficult to lay down any general rule. As regards the case immediately before us, we cannot, sitting as a Full Bench, go into the evidence, and decide whether or not this is a case in which specific performance ought to be granted. The case must go back to the referring Bench which must, on the evidence, decide that question.
As regards the second question, I do not think it becomes of any importance in the view I have taken of the first. But in the facts were as they are stated in the report, I should say the case was properly decided.
The case will, therefore, go back to the referring Court to be tried out on the merits. The costs of this reference will abide the result.
Ghose, J.—I agree with the learned Chief Justice in the answer that he proposes to give to the questions submitted to the Full Bench.
I may add that if the first question be answered in the way my Lord has answered it, the second question does not really arise.
Rampini, J.—I agree with the learned Chief Justice in the answer which he gives to the first question put to us by the reference.
It is, perhaps, strictly speaking not necessary to answer the second question. But it appears to me that the learned Judge who decided the case of Fatima Bibi v. Deb Nauth Shah proceeded on a misapprehension of the facts. He says this is a case of specific performance of a contract and the case of Flight v. Holland is applicable.” But in that case, the contract was entered into by the minor himself, whereas in Fatima Bibi v. Deb Nauth Shah the contract had been entered into by the father of the minor: and therefore in my opinion the rule laid down in the case of Flight v. Bolland did not apply to the facts of that case.
Ghidt, J.—I agree in the judgments delivered by the learned Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Ghose.
Holmwood, J.— I also agree.