Minor cannot be a full partner in a firm; only admission to partnership benefits is legally permissible.

A minor cannot be made a full partner in a firm through a guardian, even with the consent of the other partners, under Section 30 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. A deed that treats the minor as sharing profits and losses is invalid to that extent, and the arrangement cannot be recharacterised as a valid admission only to the benefits of partnership. The High Court also noted that it could not travel beyond the Tribunal's findings or introduce a fresh factual or legal basis outside the income-tax reference. The firm was therefore not entitled to registration on the footing that the minor was a partner.

---

---

Issues: Whether a minor can enter into a partnership through his mother or guardian, even with the consent of the other partners, so as to constitute a valid firm eligible for registration under the income-tax law.

Analysis: Under Section 30 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, a minor cannot be a full partner in a firm, though he may be admitted only to the benefits of partnership. The deed in question treated the minor as a partner sharing profits and losses, and the court held that such an arrangement could not be treated as a valid partnership by recharacterising the minor as merely admitted to benefits. The court also held that it could not go behind the Tribunal's findings or raise a new factual or legal basis not referred under the income-tax reference provisions.

Conclusion: The answer was in the negative. A minor cannot enter into a partnership through a guardian, even with the consent of the other partners, and the firm was not entitled to registration on that footing.

Ratio Decidendi: A minor is incapable of being a partner in a firm, and a partnership deed making the minor a partner is invalid; only admission to the benefits of partnership is permissible.

---