Law: Limitation Act (IX of 1908)

Section: 120

Limitation Act (IX of 1908), First Sch. Art. 120-Suit for money paid by plaintiff to defendant for being employed towards a joint venture-Art. 120 applicable.   Where the suit was for recovery of money paid by the plaintiff to defendant for being employed towards the purchase, jointly with the defendant, of a cinema, and the negotiations for the deal proved abortive:   Held, that Article 120, Limitation Act was applicable to the suit and not Arts. 60, 62, 89 or 97.   Date of hearing : 1st May 1958.   JUDGMENT   Osman filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 73,000 alleged to have been paid by him to the defendant. Rs. 30,000 are alleged to have been paid by cheque and Rs. 40,000 in cash. He died on 16th June, 1953, and his two daughters and one son were brought on record as his legal representatives. They continue to be the plaintiffs. The defendant admitted the receipt of Rs. 30,000 but alleged that this was in refund of an equal amount paid by him to Osman. He denied the receipt of Rs. 40,000.   The parties agree that Osman and the defendant were close friends and that the dispute has arisen out of a transaction for purchasing a cinema formerly known as "The Parbhat Cinema" and afterwards renamed as "Nigar Cinema" situated on Wadhumal Odharam Road, Karachi.   According to the plaintiff, the defendant informed him in March 1948 that the property was for sale and proposed that the two friends should buy it jointly. The owner, viz. Vishnu Rewa Shankar Pangholi demanded four lacs of rupees as the price of the property, but as it was partly burnt, these friends considered the price to be rather high and tried to get it reduced. On the 2nd of April, 1948, the defendant is said to have informed the plaintiff that the bargain had been struck at Rs. 3,37,500 and that Rs. 1,00,000 had to be deposited with one Mr. Dastur of the Central Bank Limited, Karachi to make the agreement binding and effective. The defendant is said to have had with him Rs. 30,000 only at that time and therefore the plaintiff agreed to invest Rs. 70,000 and thus make up the deposit of one lac of rupees. The plaintiff is, therefore, said to have…