Wife living in London gives POA to family friend to manage his Vadodara property, friend gifts it to son and daughter-in-law; husband files case and wins in Gujarat HC

Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Justice R.T. Vachhani of Gujarat High Court recently ruled that a general Power of Attorney (POA) holder cannot gift a house to his son and daughter-in-law, especially after the property owner’s wife, who had signed the POA, has passed away.

To grasp the significance of this ruling, it’s essential to know the details of this case. Mr Purshotam Ranchhodbhai Pankhania and his wife originally hailed from Vadodara, Gujarat, but were living in Kennelworth Road, London, for a while now. Before their move to London, Mr Pankhania, a businessman, owned a 3,200-square feet property in Sayajigunj.

The Sayajigunj property was bought by Pankhania and his wife, from Smt. Maniben Chimanbhai Desai on September 16, 1999, with payments made via cheque.


However, when Pankhania and his wife decided to move to London, their close friend, Mr Patel, expressed his desire to start a partnership business with them, which required him to have the power of attorney (POA) for the Sayajigunj property. On July 15, 1998, Pankhania’s wife signed the POA in Patel’s favour and since then Patel had the POA for Pankhania’s Sayajigunj property.

Unfortunately, Pankhania’s wife passed away in London on July 21, 2010 due to age-related issues. Shocked by his wife’s death, Pankhania didn’t request the return of the power of attorney and it remained with Patel. However, the power vested through POA became inactive since Pankhania’s wife had died. In simple terms, this meant Patel couldn’t use the power of attorney for any further purpose.

However, Patel who had no knowledge about Pankhania’s wife’s death, signed a gift deed on January 5, 2011 and gave Pankhania’s Sayajigunj property to his own son and daughter-in-law. This gift deed was registered. When Pankhania eventually got to know about this, he got furious and immediately asked his lawyer to send Patel a legal notice.

Shortly after, Pankhania filed a case in the Vadodara civil court. Patel got the court notice and came to explain his actions. Patel said that Pankhania did not tell the court that Pankhania took about £78,000 from him to start a business, which he has no paid back.

Patel also told the court that when Pankhania could not return his £78,000 pounds, Pankhania himself suggested him that Patel should transfer the Sayajigunj property to Patel’s son and daughter-in-law’s name. Thus Patel said that he merely acted on Pankhania’s instructions and the gift deed was not a fraud or obtained through unauthorised means.

After hearing and considering the evidence, the Vadodara civil court dismissed the case . Feeling aggrieved, Pankhania appealed to the Gujarat High Court.

In a judgement dated July 15, 2026, the Gujarat High Court ruled that Patel had no right to execute the gift deed and ordered the return of Pankhania’s property to him.

Also read: 6reasons why you should not buy property via Power of Attorney

Why did Purshotam Ranchhodbhai Pankhania win the case.in Gujarat High Court?

Jahnavi Kohli, Head of Private Client Practice at ANB Legal says that the Gujarat High Court allowed Mr Purshotam Ranchhodbhai Pankhania's appeal, quashed and set aside the judgment and decree of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara and held the registered Gift Deed void ab initio. Thus the reliefs sought by Pankhania i.e cancellation of the Gift Deed and permanent injunction were granted by the high court.

The Gujarat High Court ruled in favour of Pankhania's primarily because:

• The Gift Deed was executed by Defendant No. 1 Mr Patel as Power of Attorney (POA) holder after the death of one of the principals Pankhania's wife, who died on July 21, 2010.
• The POAs did not authorise the attorney to make a gift of Pankhania property in Vadodara.
• The trial court had erred by relying on assumptions about financial adjustments/loan set-off rather than the actual legal limits of the agency and the text of the POAs.

Also read: Can NRIs appoint a relative as power of attorney to manage property in India?

Aadisha Shetty also from ANB Legal explains the legal angles decided by the Gujarat High Court:

Automatic termination of POA on death of principal

Plaintiff No. 2 (Pankhania's wife) died on July 21, 2010, so the high court held that the POA she had executed therefore stood terminated under Section 201. Defendant No. 1 (Mr Patel) could not thereafter execute any deed purporting to act as her attorney. Claiming ignorance of death was rejected, especially given the claimed close/family-like/fiduciary relationship.

Strict construction of Power of Attorney: No authority to gift

Powers of Attorney must be construed strictly. General words in later clauses cannot enlarge restricted powers given earlier. Authority must be found within the four corners of the instrument, either expressly or by necessary implication.

The Gujarat High Court extracted and examined both POAs and observed that they authorised the attorney (Mr Patel), inter alia, to buy, sell, exchange, mortgage, manage property, settle accounts, compromise claims, etc. – all acts involving consideration. There was no clause authorising a gift (transfer without consideration).

A gift of valuable immovable property to the attorney’s (Mr Patel) own son and daughter-in-law fell outside the conferred authority. Consequently, the attorney acted in excess of authority; the act was unauthorised and did not bind the principals or create title in the donees.

Registration and Section 32(c) of the Registration Act

Presentation of a document for registration by an agent requires the agent to possess valid authority at the time of presentation. After termination by death, the presentation itself is defective and cannot convey title.

Rejection of Patel's other defences

• The trial court had accepted that the gift was in lieu of loans. The Gujarat High Court held this was based on assumptions and presumptions unsupported by cogent documentary evidence linking the alleged loans to an authorised transfer of the suit property. The core challenge was lack of authority under the POA; financial claims (if any) were a separate matter and could not validate an unauthorised gift.
• Not framed as an issue; not pressed before the trial court; plaintiffs acted promptly after knowledge. The defence failed.
• Judgments cited by defendants on construction of deeds, knowledge of death, etc., were distinguished as inapplicable on the facts.

Also read: Father gave elder son POA and property settlement deeds; younger brother files forgery case against him and nephew files civil case; SC orders criminal trial

According to Kohli, this Gujarat High Court judgment reinforces two fundamental principles of agency law in India:

• Agency terminates automatically on the death of the principal.
• A Power of Attorney is strictly construed; acts beyond the expressly or necessarily implied authority are void and do not bind the principal.

A short summary of Gujarat High Court judgement

The Gujarat High Court said that the undisputed facts of the case on hand would reveal that Pankhania executed a general power of attorney in favour of Patel and on demise of Pankhania’s wife, the power of attorney executed by her in favour of Patel comes to an end.

The Gujarat High Court said that once Pankhania’s wife died, Patel could not have entered into any transaction related to Pankhania’s property even if Patel claimed to have no knowledge about Pankhania’s wife’s death. The high court said that post the death of the principal of the power of attorney, even while pleading ignorance of death of the principal, Patel’s act in the capacity of a POA holder was illegal and does not have any leg to stand on in the eye of law.

Thus, the Gujarat High Court said that in view of the aforesaid, the Civil Court, seems to have been gone beyond the gamut of the case and rather had rested its findings / conclusions, solely on assumptions and presumptions, while equating financial presumptions with the authority assigned to set off all the sum against the considerations, etc.

The high court said that the case of Pankhania is entirely based on questioning the execution of the gift deed by Patel, without any assumptions regarding the power of attorney. As a result, issues related to financial transactions or payments are not relevant.

Order: “Consequently, the registered Gift Deed dated 05/01/2011 executed by the defendant No.1 (Patel) in favour of the defendants No.2 and 3 (son and daughter-in-law) is held as void, ab initio and in nutshell, the relief as prayed for in the relief clause of the plaint stands allowed.”