Minors admitted to partnership benefits did not breach partnership law, preserving firm registration under tax law.

Partnership deeds admitting minors only to the benefits of the firm, without making them liable for losses, were treated as consistent with section 30 of the Partnership Act. The dominant intention shown by the profit-and-loss clauses was that the minors were not full partners, and the fact that guardians signed the deeds did not invalidate the arrangement. A capital contribution clause also did not create a legal defect, because any contractual obligation bound the guardian and not the minor personally. On that basis, the firms remained entitled to registration under the Income-tax Act, and cancellation of registration was erroneous.

---

---

Issues: Whether the partnership deeds dated 12 December 1958 and 10 December 1959, under which minors were admitted to the benefits of the partnership and guardians signed on their behalf, contravened section 30 of the Partnership Act so as to invalidate the firms' registration under the Income-tax Act.

Analysis: The deeds expressly showed that the minors were admitted only to the benefits of the partnership and were not made liable for losses. The provisions relating to sharing of profits and losses indicated the dominant intention of the parties that the minors were not full-fledged partners. The clause enabling a partner to dissolve the firm on notice did not affect the position of the minors, because a minor admitted to the benefits of partnership is not a partner and cannot determine the firm in that manner. The signing of the deeds by guardians and the clause requiring capital contribution did not invalidate the arrangement, because a guardian may enter into a contract on behalf of a minor, and such an obligation binds the guardian but not the minor personally. The deeds therefore did not disclose any legal flaw or breach of section 30 of the Partnership Act.

Conclusion: The firms were entitled to registration and the cancellation of registration was erroneous. The answers to both referred questions were in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.

---