Partnership registration with executors as one partner upheld; missing signature on Form No. 12 was not fatal.

A partnership remained valid and genuine where one partner's interest was represented jointly by executors under a will, because the executor derives title on the testator's death and may exercise the deceased's powers over the estate. The partnership deed treated the deceased partner's estate as represented by the executor and executrix, so the representative character of that partner did not invalidate the firm. The absence of the executrix's signature on Form No. 12 was not treated as fatal, because the executors together constituted a single partner and one executor could act for the estate absent a contrary direction. Continuation of registration was therefore upheld in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee-firm was entitled to continuation of registration under section 184(7) where one partner in the firm was represented jointly by executors under a will, and whether the absence of the executrix's signature on Form No. 12 justified of registration.

Analysis: The partnership deed treated the estate of the deceased partner as represented by the executor and executrix, and under the Indian Succession Act the executor derives title from the will on the testator's death and may exercise the deceased's powers in respect of the estate. A partnership is constituted by agreement to share profits and carry on business, and it is not invalid merely because one partner is a representative capacity through joint executors. The Court applied the principle that the contract of partnership regulates the partners' rights and liabilities inter se, and that the firm remained genuine notwithstanding the representative character of one constituent. As to Form No. 12, the requirement of signature by all partners was not treated as fatal because the deed itself showed that the executors together constituted a single partner and one executor could act for the estate in the absence of a contrary direction.

Conclusion: The firm was a valid and genuine partnership, and the defect in the signature on Form No. 12 did not justify refusal of continuation of registration. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

---