Rahul, a minor, was admitted to the benefits of a partnership firm. On dissolution, the firm's assets are insufficient to pay its debts and the creditors seek to hold Rahul personally liable. Under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, which is correct?

A minor who is admitted to the benefits of a partnership under Section 30 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, shares in the firm's profits but is not personally liable for its debts. His liability is confined to the extent of his share in the property and profits of the firm, and it is only that share which the creditors may proceed against. Since he is not a full partner, he cannot sue the other partners except for his share, and on attaining majority he must elect within six months whether to become a partner or to sever his connection with the firm under sub-sections (5) and (7). The minor can, however, recover his share and the profits due to him, so the suggestion that his share cannot be attached at all is incorrect.