Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral).:-The findings of two Courts below are being assailed on the ground that the plaintiff could not seek winding up of partnership business and pray for the recovery of amount on basis of partnership deed dated 14.6.1988 on the following grounds:-

a) That the partnership deed was not registered;

b) That suit was barred by limitation;

c) That ingredients of Section 4 and 6 of the Partnership Act, 1932 are lacking and, therefore, partnership could not be invoked.

2. Two Courts below have taken the evidence of DW.2 Makhan Singh, husband of defendant No.2 into consideration that he had admitted execution of partnership deed Ex.P2 in cross-examination. The Courts further held that rent petition was filed by the plaintiff and, therefore, two cheques amounting to Rs.20,000/- and Rs.5,000/- have been paid as compensation for the existing balance in the nursery. Claim of the plaintiff was that she is to be paid as per partnership deed upto March 1990 or till the land was actually acquired by the Government. It is not disputed that the possession of the land has been taken by the Government in the year 2007. Having noticed the contention of learned counsel for the appellant/defendant in the present regular second appeal, it will be apposite here to notice brief facts of the case.

3. It was pleaded by plaintiff Jaswant Kaur that she had entered into partnership on 14.6.1988 and it was agreed that defendant No.1 shall run a business of Nursery on the piece of land situated in the revenue estate of Manimajra. The Nursery was to be run under the name and style of Defence Nursery. Clause 4 and 5 of the partnership deed, reproduced in the grounds of appeal, read as under:-

4. That however, party No.1 shall be entitled to have lump sum amount on monthly basis, to be her share out of the said business, in the manner hereunder mentioned.

a) Rs.1750/- per month for the Ist year (1.7.88 to 30.6.8

b) Rs.2000/- per month for the next two years (1.7.89 to 30.6.9.

c) Rs.2500/- per month for the next two years (1.7.91 to 30.

d) Rs.3000/- per month for the next two years (1.7.93 to 30.6.9) It is specifically mentioned that party No.1 shall be entitled to this payment of monthly amount indicated above, whether the business is run at a profit or loss, b the 2nd party.

5. That the parties agree that they can run the partnership business at the Ist instance for a period of 7 years, whereafter if the business to be continued, then they shall have to execute a new partnership deed on such terms and conditions which may be agreed to between them”.

4. The plaintiff raised a claim that the appellant/defendant has not paid the agreed amount w.e.f. April 1990 inspite of repeated demands and requests. The appellant/defendant filed written statement and raised preliminary objections that suit is time barred; plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit; no cause of action has accrued to the plaintiff; and the suit is barred by principles of estoppel. Furthermore, suit is barred under Section 69 of the Partnership Act and the suit was malafide. On merits it was stated that the defendant was running a Nursery as Proprietor. It was further stated that the plaintiff has nothing to do with the business of defendant No.2 and document dated 14.6.1988 is not a partnership deed. It is an illegal and void document. No amount is to be paid as the rent for the use of agricultural land for Nursery purposes. The respondent/plaintiff never acted upon the document dated 14.6.1988. It was further stated that in 1988 when appellant/defendant took the land for Nursery purpose from the respondent/plaintiff a sum of Rs.20,000/- was paid in lieu of purchase of entire stock of plants. Another cheque of Rs.5,000/- was also issued in favour of the respondent/plaintiff.

5. Defendant No.2, husband of the plaintiff appeared as DW.2 and admitted execution of partnership deed dated 14.6.1988.

6. Mr.G.S.Punia, Advocate, appearing for the respondent/pla