Shivagouda Ravji Patil v. Chandrakant Neelkanth Sedalge

Shivagouda Ravji Patil v. Chandrakant Neelkanth Sedalge

1964 SCR (8) 233

[minor turns major, Section 30(5) ]


A partnership firm was being run wherein one of the partners was a minor (respondent 1) and was admitted to the benefits of the partnership. The partnership was dissolved and subsequently the minor partner became a major. However, he did not exercise his option to become a partner under Section 30(5) of the Indian Partnership Act.[1] When the appellants claimed their dues, the respondents were unable to pay them and so all three of them were sued by the appellants for adjudicating them for being insolvent.


Is respondent 1, who did not exercise his right to be a partner for the firm, a partner under Section 30(5) of the Indian Partnership Act?


Trial Court: Declared all the partners including the minor (respondent 1) insolvent.

High Court: Respondent 1 was not a partner of the firm.

Supreme Court

Contention [The appellants (creditor)]: Respondent 1 is a partner of the firm as he did not exercise his option to be a partner in the firm under Section 30(5).


Under ordinary circumstances a respondent 1 would be a partner of the firm. However, in this case he had attained majority only after the firm had been dissolved. A minor after attaining majority cannot elect to be a partner of a firm that does not exist. Hence Section 30 of the Partnership Act does not apply to him.

Appeal dismissed with costs.

[1] At any time within six months of his attaining majority, or of his obtaining knowledge that he had been admitted to the benefits of partnership, whichever date is later, such person may give public notice that he has elected to become or that he has elected not to become a partner in the firm, and such notice shall determine his position as regards the firm

Similar Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *