Question

why did Gopi want to sell his share of property .​

Answer 1

Answer:

This appeal arises out of a suit on foot of a mortgage, dated the 19th of June, 1887. The mortgagor was one Fateh Chand, and the mortgagee was one Abdul Kafil. The mortgage was for Rs. 50,000 at 14 annas per cent, per mensem interest. It is clear now that Abdul Kafil was not the real mortgagee, but was only benamidar for one Abdul Jalil, a pleader in Cawnpore. This mortgage was subsequently attached and sold in execution of a simple money decree which Gaya Prasad had obtained against Abdul Jalil and which was being executed against the representatives of the latter. The certificated auction purchaser of this mortgage was Babu Kunj Behari Lal, the plaintiff in the present suit. This bond has been the subject of a good deal of litigation which, in the view we take of the case, it is not material to refer to. It was made, as already stated, by Fateh Chand in favour of his pleader, and one of the defences taken in the present suit is the plea that there was no consideration for the bond. The bond, no doubt, was of a very suspicious nature, made as it was in favour of the pleader of Fateh Chand. Fateh Chand was a man who managed to dissipate what must originally have been an estate of considerable value, and had the suit been one between Fateh Chand and Abdul Jalil, we might have had great difficulty in holding that anything like the full principal sum of Rs. 50,000 was due. We think, however, for reasons which we shall presently state, that the defendants appallants in the present appeal cannot be allowed to say that the bond was not for its full face consideration. Three villager were mortgaged, one called Pali Khurd, another called Pali Kalan, and third called Sadikpur. A one-third share in each of these villages has been sold in satisfaction of prior mortgages, but two-thirds of Pali Khurd was purchased by the defendant Abdul Hamid and two-thirds of Pali Kalan was purchased by Gaya Prasad, both in execution of simple money decrees. Sadikpur was purchased by Sheo Dayal. The price paid for Pali Khurd by Abdul Hamid must clearly have been based upon the property being subject to a heavy incumbrance. In a written statement by Abdul Hamid in certain litigation between one Sheo Prasad and himself and others, he expressly admitted that at the sale of this property the mortgage of the 19th of June, 1887, was proclaimed and that he purchased the property subject to that mortgage. Pali Kalan was also purchased at a price which would have been an absurdly low value unless the property was subject to a heavy incumbrance. After the death of Gaya Prasad the defendants, Gopi Narain and the other trustees (who are the defendants appellants and are hereinafter referred to as "the trustees"), in their application for probate of the will of Gaya Prasad placed a very small value on the property and expressly stated that it was subject to this mortgage for Rs. 50,000 and interest. Neither the trustees nor Abdul Hamid have given any affirmative evidence of the want of consideration. 

Answer 2

Answer:

Explanation:

Gopi wanted to sell his share of family property