Partnership assets and minors' benefits determine liability, mortgage authority, and a widow's maintenance-only interest.

A guardian may continue a family business for minors' benefit, and where the minors are admitted to the benefits of the partnership, their shares in partnership property remain answerable for firm liabilities. Property thrown into the business becomes partnership assets on the facts found, and a managing partner may validly mortgage such assets where the governing arrangement authorises dealings for the firm. A widow under Khoja custom has only a right to maintenance from the estate, not a specific proprietary interest in any particular asset, so her claim remains subject to the general administration of the estate.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the minor sons became partners in the business or were at least admitted to the benefits of the partnership so as to bind their partnership shares; (ii) whether the house formed part of the partnership assets; (iii) whether the managing partner had authority to mortgage the property in favour of the bank; and (iv) whether the widow had a specific interest in the property or only a right to maintenance subject to the general dealings with the estate.

Issue (i): whether the minor sons became partners in the business or were at least admitted to the benefits of the partnership so as to bind their partnership shares.

Analysis: The guardian, acting for the minors, had authority to determine whether the business should be wound up or continued for their benefit. The evidence showed that the business was continued for all six sons, profits were divided among them, and the statutory consequence of such admission was that the minors, though not personally liable before majority, had their shares in the partnership property answerable for the firm's obligations.

Conclusion: The minor sons were treated as admitted to the benefits of the partnership, and their partnership shares were liable for the firm's obligations.

Issue (ii): whether the house formed part of the partnership assets.

Analysis: Both lower courts found, as a matter of fact, that the house had been thrown into the business assets and formed part of the partnership property. That concurrent factual finding was not open to disturbance in the appeal.

Conclusion: The house formed part of the partnership assets.

Issue (iii): whether the managing partner had authority to mortgage the property in favour of the bank.

Analysis: On the terms of the governing decree, the managing partner had authority to deal with partnership property for the firm. The mortgage therefore bound the firm, and even if it had not, the property would still have been available to the general body of creditors as partnership asset.

Conclusion: The managing partner had authority to execute the mortgage.

Issue (iv): whether the widow had a specific interest in the property or only a right to maintenance subject to the general dealings with the estate.

Analysis: The widow's right under Khoja custom was only a right to maintenance out of the estate. She had no specific proprietary interest in any particular item of family property, and her rights were subordinate to the general administration and dealings with the estate by those in charge.

Conclusion: The widow had only a right to maintenance and no specific interest in the property.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on all substantial grounds, and the decree enforcing the mortgage and the related findings were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a guardian validly continues a family business for minors' benefit and the property is treated as partnership assets, the minors' partnership shares answer for firm liabilities and the managing partner may bind the firm in dealing with those assets.

---