Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a minor could create a partnership by contract and be made liable under Section 247 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 by being admitted to the benefits of the partnership; whether Section 247 could override the incapacity of a minor to contract under Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
Analysis: Section 247 permits a minor to be admitted to the benefits of an existing partnership, but it does not confer on a minor the legal capacity to create a partnership in the first place. A partnership of the kind in question must already exist before a minor can be admitted to its benefits. Since a minor's contract is void and not merely voidable, the minor could not validly bring the firm into existence by contract and then claim admission to its benefits. The distinction between a contractual partnership and a Hindu joint family arrangement was material, and the agency principle under Section 184 did not supply a power in the minor to contract.
Conclusion: The minor could not create the partnership or be made liable on that basis, and the contention based on Section 247 failed.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the remand was set aside, and the trial court's dismissal was restored with costs against the plaintiffs.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 247 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 enables only the admission of a minor to the benefits of an already existing partnership and does not override the minor's incapacity to contract under Section 11.