A power of attorney (POA) holder cannot gift an owner’s to his own family members when the document does not authorise such a transfer, the Gujarat High Court has ruled. The court also held that a power of attorney executed by a principal comes to an end on the principal’s death.
The ruling came in a property dispute involving Purshotam Ranchhodbhai Pankhania, who was living in London with his wife. The Gujarat High Court, in its judgment dated 15 July 2026, allowed Pankhania’s appeal and declared a registered gift deed executed by his power of attorney holder in favour of the holder’s son and daughter-in-law void ab initio.
The case was Purshotam Ranchhodbhai Pankhania & Ors. v. Harihar Ambalal Patel & Ors., R/First Appeal No. 259 of 2020, decided by a division bench comprising Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Justice R. T. Vachhani.
How the dispute started
Pankhania and his wife owned a property measuring about 3,200 square feet in Vadodara’s Sayajigunj area. The property had been purchased through a registered sale deed dated 16 September 1999, with the consideration paid by cheque, according to the High Court’s judgment.
The couple were living in the UK and had given powers of attorney to their acquaintance, Harihar Ambalal Patel, to deal with their affairs and property in India.
Pankhania’s wife died in London on 21 July 2010. However, the POA documents remained with Patel.
On 5 January 2011, around six months after her , Patel executed a registered gift deed transferring the property in favour of his own son and daughter-in-law.
Pankhania subsequently came to know about the transaction and challenged the gift deed before the civil court in Vadodara. He sought cancellation of the deed and protection of his property rights.
What Patel told the court
Patel disputed Pankhania’s allegations. His defence included a claim that Pankhania had taken around £78,000 from him for starting a business and had not repaid the money.
According to Patel’s version, Pankhania had suggested that the property be transferred to Patel’s son and daughter-in-law as an adjustment against the money allegedly owed to Patel. Patel therefore claimed that the gift deed was not an unauthorised transaction.
The trial court accepted the defence and dismissed Pankhania’s suit. Pankhania then approached the Gujarat High Court.
Why the Gujarat HC ruled in Pankhania’s favour
The High Court examined the legal authority contained in the powers of attorney rather than treating the alleged financial dealings as sufficient authority to transfer the property.
The bench relied on Section 201 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, under which an agency is terminated by the death of the principal. Since Pankhania’s wife had died on 21 July 2010, the court held that the authority arising from the POA executed by her had come to an end.
The court rejected Patel’s plea that he was unaware of her death. According to the judgment, Patel could not rely on the POA to execute a transaction after the death of the principal.
The court also examined the actual terms of the POAs and found another fundamental problem. The documents did not authorise Patel to make a gift of the property.
The High Court emphasised that a POA must be construed strictly. An attorney can exercise only those powers expressly granted or those that are necessarily implied. The existence of powers relating to dealing with or managing property could not be stretched to include the power to make a gratuitous transfer.
Here, the was made in favour of Patel’s own son and daughter-in-law. The court held that this transaction fell outside the authority granted under the POA.
Registration did not make the gift valid
The fact that the gift deed was registered did not cure the lack of authority.
The High Court also considered Section 32(c) of the Registration Act, concerning presentation of documents for registration by an agent. Since Patel’s authority had already come to an end, the court found that he could not validly act as the attorney for the deceased principal.
The bench further held that the alleged loan or financial adjustment could not substitute for the authority required under the POA. Any independent financial claim between the parties could not, by itself, give Patel the power to gift Pankhania’s property.
The Gujarat High Court consequently set aside the trial court’s judgment and decree and allowed Pankhania’s appeal.
The court declared the registered gift deed dated 5 January 2011, executed by Patel in favour of his son and daughter-in-law, void ab initio and granted the relief sought by Pankhania.