A minor cannot be a partner in a firm, and any contract making a minor a partner is void.

Kapur, J.

1. This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, by their order dated 7-5-1951 referring the following question for the opinion of this Court:

"Whether a minor son can, according to law, enter into a partnership through his mother. the natural guardian, even with the consent of the other partners?"

2. The question has arisen in the following circumstances. In 1937 a partnership was entered into of which the partners were five individuals and ten units who were different Hindu Undivided Families. As some doubts arose in regard to the legality of this partnership, on 13-7-1942 there was a reconstituted firm having fifteen partners 10 of whom were the managers of the Hindu Undivided Families and 5 were the other individuals.

3. Sohan Lal who was a partner in this firm died and a new partnership was entered into on 28-6-1945 and one of the partners was Sohan Lals son Satish Kumar who is described at No. 6 in the partnership deed as "Satish Kumar minor son of Lala Sohan Lal B. Sc., by his guardian and mother Shrimati Shakun-tala Devi residing at Ferozepore City". The name of this partnership was Bankarnal-Lajja-ram and the deed recites: "We the parties shall be bound by the following terms and conditions :

1. This partnership shall be in existence up to and inclusive of 31-8-1947 A. D. and the conditions agreed to by the parties hereto and set out below shall be binding on us all the parties aforesaid. No party will have power to contravene any of the conditions agreed to arid contained herein or to dissolve this partnership.

2. * * *

3. The shares of the parties in the profits and loss of this business shall be as follows * * * * (vi) Satishkumar minor son of Lala Sohan-lal by his mother Shrimati Shakumala Devi party of the 6th part Rs. 0/0/4 41/64 in a rupee * * * That is to say we all the aforesaid partners shall be entitled to receive and liable to pay profit and loss in the proportion of the aforesaid shares. * * *."

4. The other terms of the partnership deed make no distinction between the liabilities of the minor partner Satish Kumar and the other partners. According to this partnership then all the partners including Satish Kumar were jointly responsible for the loss and entitled to the profits of this business.

5. Application was made for the assessment year 1945-46 for registration of this partnership deed under Section 26A Income-tax Act which was rejected by the Income-tax Officer and by the Assistant Appellate Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi Range. The matter was taken on appeal to the Appellate Tribunal who by an order dated 1-8-1950 upheld the order of the Assistant Commissioner but on a different ground. It held that as a minor had become a partner and had not. merely been admitted to the benefits of the partnership no valid partnership had been constituted and therefore the partnership could not be registered.

6. The assessee then applied for statement of the case to the High Court and raised four questions which are printed on page 25 of the paper book. On 31-3-1951 a draft statement was prepared and sent to the assessee and by an application dated 27-4-1951 the assessee asked for the modification of the question of law to be raised. The modified question suggested was:

"Whether the mother as a guardian can according to law, enter into the partnership with others on behalf of her minor son."

It was stated in this application that according to the draft statement the real partner appeared to be the minor whereas the correct position was "that the real partner is the mother though she acts on behalf of her minor son". Another question which was sought to be raised by this application was ihat even if it was held that because Satish Kumar was a partner the partnership would be invalid it (the partnership) should be deemed to be a partnership of 14 partners and the registration should be allowed on that basis, the share of Satish Kumar bring distributed proportionately