by an instrument of partnership executed that day. i96o Those three others were Viswanath Purumul, Govind. • Th e c 011111uss1oner . . ram Khetan and Kantilal Kasherdeo. Dwarkadas of Income-tax Income-tax Khetan's share in the partnership was 7 annas in the Bombay ' rupee, while the remaining 9 annas' share was divided v. equally among the three others. Though Kantilal M /s. Dwa•kadas Kasherdeo was a minor, he was admitted as a full Khetan & Co. partner and not merely to the benefits of the partner- Hidayat1tllah J. ship, as required by s. 30 of the Indian Partnership Act. To the instrument of partnership, Kantilal Kasherdeo was also a signatory, though immediately after his signature there was the signature of one Kasherdeo Rungta, the natural guardian of the minor. In the instrument, Kantilal Kasherdeo was described as a full partner entitled not only to a share in the profits but also liable to bear all the losses including loss of capital. It was also provided that all the four partners were to attend to the business, and if consent was needed, all the partners including the minor had to give their consent in writing. The minor was also entitled to manage the affairs of the firm, including inspection of the account books, and was given the right to vote, if a decision on votes had to be taken. In short, no distinction was made between the adult partners and the minor, and to all intents and pur. poses, the minor was a full partner, even though under the partnership law he could only be admitted to the benefits of the partnership and not as a partner.
