Archive · 2 Sep 2026
Gujarat High Court Limits Power Of Attorney Property Transfers
A couple living in the United Kingdom gave Harihar Ambalal Patel permission to manage their property in India.
The property was in Vadodara and measured about 3,200 square feet.
The wife later died in London.
After her death, Patel used the power of attorney to give the property to his son and daughter-in-law.
The husband said Patel did not have permission to do this.
Patel said the transfer was connected to money the husband allegedly owed him.
The Gujarat High Court said the permission ended when the wife died.
It also said the documents never allowed Patel to give the property away, so the gift deed was invalid from the beginning.
The Gujarat High Court declared a registered gift deed transferring Pankhania’s property to a power of attorney holder’s son and daughter-in-law void.
The court held that the power of attorney issued by Pankhania’s wife ended when she died on 21 July 2010.
The gift deed was executed by Harihar Ambalal Patel on 5 January 2011, about six months after her death.
The court found that the power of attorney documents did not expressly or impliedly authorise Patel to gift the property.
The court rejected Patel’s alleged £78,000 financial adjustment claim as a substitute for authority to transfer the property.
- Who
- Purshotam Ranchhodbhai Pankhania challenged a gift deed executed by his power of attorney holder, Harihar Ambalal Patel, in favour of Patel’s son and daughter-in-law.
- What
- The Gujarat High Court declared the registered gift deed void ab initio and allowed Pankhania’s appeal.
- When
- The gift deed was executed on 5 January 2011; Pankhania’s wife died on 21 July 2010; the judgment was dated 15 July 2026.
- Where
- The disputed property was in the Sayajigunj area of Vadodara, and the case was decided by the Gujarat High Court.
- Why
- The court found that the wife’s power of attorney ended upon her death and that the documents did not authorise Patel to gift the property.
Pankhania’s Position
Patel’s Position
Authority to transfer the property
Pankhania’s Position
Pankhania argued that Patel lacked authority to execute the gift deed, particularly because the power of attorney did not authorise a gift.
Patel’s Position
Patel disputed the allegations and maintained that the transfer was connected to an alleged financial arrangement with Pankhania.
Effect of the wife’s death
Pankhania’s Position
Pankhania’s position was supported by the court’s finding that the wife’s power of attorney ended on her death on 21 July 2010.
Patel’s Position
Patel claimed he was unaware of the wife’s death, but the court held that this could not justify acting under the expired power of attorney.
Alleged £78,000 claim
Pankhania’s Position
The court held that any independent financial claim could not itself give Patel authority to gift Pankhania’s property.
Patel’s Position
Patel claimed Pankhania had taken around £78,000 to start a business and had suggested transferring the property as an adjustment against the alleged debt.
- Case
- Purshotam Ranchhodbhai Pankhania & Ors. v. Harihar Ambalal Patel & Ors.
- Case number
- R/First Appeal No. 259 of 2020
- Property
- About 3,200 square feet in Vadodara’s Sayajigunj area
- Original purchase
- Registered sale deed dated 16 September 1999
- Gift deed
- Registered on 5 January 2011 in favour of Patel’s son and daughter-in-law
- Key legal provision
- Section 201 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, concerning termination of agency upon the principal’s death
- Judgment
- The Gujarat High Court set aside the trial court’s judgment and decree and allowed Pankhania’s appeal