1. Dispute over title to agricultural land transferred in contravention of Section 43, Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. (Para 2 , 10 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Guj) 1299
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MAULIK J.SHELAT, J.
Mukeshbhai Kantibhai Prajapati & Anr. – Appellant
Versus
Viren Ratilal Patel & Ors. – Respondent
R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 423 of 2026 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2026 In R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 423 of 2026 With R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 424 of 2026 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2026 In R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 424 of 2026
Decided On : 11-09-2026
Advocates appeared:
Appearance in SA No.423/2026:- MR. MIHIR THAKORE, SENIOR COUNSEL assisted by MR SHAKTI S JADEJA(5491) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR RUSI B TRIVEDI(11227) for the Respondent(s) No. 5
Appearance in SA No.424/2026:- MR. AMAR BHATT, SENIOR COUNSEL assisted by MR. TIRTH NAYAK(8563) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1,2
MR RUSI B TRIVEDI(11227) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 5
Appearance in SA No.423/2026:- MR. MIHIR THAKORE, SENIOR COUNSEL assisted by MR SHAKTI S JADEJA(5491) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR RUSI B TRIVEDI(11227) for the Respondent(s) No. 5
Appearance in SA No.424/2026:- MR. AMAR BHATT, SENIOR COUNSEL assisted by MR. TIRTH NAYAK(8563) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1,2
MR RUSI B TRIVEDI(11227) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 5
A power of attorney is not irrevocable merely by title; it must be coupled with an interest in the subject matter. Revocation under Section 204 of the Contract Act is valid for future acts, even if the agent has already partly exercised authority by creating prior obligations.
Headnote:(A) Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 201, 202, and 204 - Agency coupled with interest - Revocation of Power of Attorney (POA) - A POA titled as "irrevocable" does not become irrevocable unless it is coupled with an interest in the subject matter of the agency (Paras 18, 18.3). Mere authorization to sell or execute deeds without the agent having a proprietary interest or security does not constitute an agency coupled with interest (Paras 18.1, 19). In the absence of a registered document creating such interest, the principal is entitled to revoke the POA (Paras 20, 21).
(B) Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Section 204 - Revocation where authority has been partly exercised - The restriction on revocation under Section 204 applies only to acts and obligations already incurred during the agency and does not prevent the principal from revoking the agent's authority to perform future acts, such as executing a final sale deed after an agreement to sell has been signed (Paras 23, 24, 26).
(C) Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - Section 43 - Restriction on transfer of new tenure land - If a sale deed is executed without authority following the revocation of a POA, the deed is null and void, rendering the question of tenure conversion academic (Paras 29, 31).
(D) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 54 - A registered agreement to sell is not capable of creating any right, title, or interest in immovable property (Para 27). (E) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Scope of Second Appeal - The High Court should not interfere with findings of fact recorded by the first appellate court unless they are perverse, grossly erroneous, or contrary to a settled principle of law (Paras 33.1, 33.2, 34).
Facts of the case:
Original owners executed a power of attorney (POA) in favor of an agent. The agent executed a registered agreement to sell in favor of a third party. Subsequently, the owners revoked the POA via legal notice. Despite this revocation, the agent executed a sale deed in favor of the third party, which was registered later. The original owners subsequently sold the property to another purchaser after the land was converted from new tenure to old tenure. The third party and subsequent purchasers challenged the declaration that the agent's sale deed was null and void.
Findings of Court:
The POA was not coupled with interest and was therefore revocable. The revocation was valid despite the partial exercise of authority (execution of the agreement to sell). The subsequent sale deed executed by the agent was without authority and thus null and void. Subsequent purchasers derived no title as the vendor possessed no valid title.
Issues: Whether the POA was an agency coupled with interest and thus irrevocable; whether the POA could be revoked after the agent had partly exercised authority by executing an agreement to sell; and whether the subsequent sale deed was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: A POA is only irrevocable if it is coupled with an interest in the subject matter; mere nomenclature does not suffice. Under Section 204 of the Contract Act, revocation of agency is permissible for future acts even if some obligations were already created. A sale deed executed by an agent after the revocation of their authority is void.
Result: Second appeals dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
property law
-
transfer of property
- sale of immovable property (Para 14)
-
transfer of property
- contract law
- practice and procedure
- tenancy and agricultural laws
Table of Contents
2. Validity of sale deed executed by agent after revocation of power of attorney; effect of Section 202 and 204, Contract Act. (Para 4 )
3. Power of attorney not coupled with interest under Section 202, Contract Act, hence revocable; sale deed executed after revocation is void. (Para 18 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 27 , 28 , 29 )
4. A power of attorney not coupled with interest is revocable; a sale deed executed after its revocation conveys no title. (Para 21 , 29 )
5. Second appeals dismissed; impugned judgment declaring sale deed null and void and other sale deed valid confirmed. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 )
6. When is a power of attorney considered irrevocable under Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act?
A power of attorney is irrevocable only when it is coupled with an interest in the subject matter of the agency for the agent. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 )
7. Can the principal revoke an agent's authority after the agent has partly exercised it?
Under Section 204, the principal cannot revoke acts and obligations already incurred by the agent, but can revoke future authority. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 )
8. What is the effect of a sale deed executed by an agent after the power of attorney has been cancelled?
Such a sale deed is null and void as the agent had no authority to act on behalf of the principal at the time of execution. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 )
COMMON CAV JUDGMENT
MAULIK J.SHELAT, J.
1. Since both these second appeals, filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”), arise out of a judgment and decree dated 27/04/2026 passed by the Principal District Judge, Gandhinagar, in Regular Civil Appeal No.66 of 2019, with the consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, they are being heard and decided by way of this common judgment.
1.1 For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the parties will be referred to as per their original positions in the suit and/or appeal.
1.2 The appellants in Second Appeal No. 423 of 2026 have filed the paper-book containing the pleadings, as well as the oral, and documentary evidence led by the parties before the Trial Court.
1.3 The appellants of Second Appeal No. 423 of 2026 are the original defendants Nos.1 and 2, whereas respondents Nos. 1 to 5 are the original plaintiffs. Respondents Nos.6 and 7 are the newly added parties in the regular appeal and joined as respondents Nos.3 and 4, who are also appellants of Second Appeal No.424 of 2026 (hereinafter referred to as “third party / subsequent purchasers”).
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE :
2. The land bearing Block/Survey No. 952, admeasuring 0- 50-59 Hectares-Are-sq.meters and bearing Block/Survey No.950/2, admeasuring 0-37-42 Hectares-Are-Sq.meters situated at village Uvarsad, Taluka and District Gandhinagar (hereinafter referred to as the "suit property"), was owned by one Jivabhai Mathurbhai and after his demise, it was mutated in the name of one Naranbhai Jivabhai in the revenue records. One Jorabhai Kamabhai was cultivating the suit property as a tenant and after his demise, since his other legal heirs waived their right to claim tenancy except Parshottambhai Jorabhai, accordingly, the name of Parshottambhai Jorabhai, was mutated in the revenue records as a tenant. The record suggests that said tenant, namely Parshottambhai, had shown his willingness to purchase the suit property as per the provisions of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as “the Tenancy Act”); thus, it was given to him at the selling price of Rs.5,689/-. Parshottambhai appears to have executed a Will in favour of Ratibhai Bhulabhai Patel (father of plaintiffs Nos.1 to 4). Parshottambhai died on 11/10/1986, thereby, the name of Ratibhai was mutated in the revenue records. Ratibhai also died on 22/07/2000 and upon his demise, plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 4 being his legal heirs, their names were mutated in the revenue records. The fact remains that said Ratibhai had received the suit property by virtue of a Will executed by said Parshottambhai in his favour. Since said Parshottambhai had purchased the suit property as an agricultural tenant as per the provisions of the Tenancy Act; thus, the suit property was a new tenure land (restricted land) when received by Ratibhai. 2.1 The said Ratibhai Bhulabhai Patel appears to have executed a notarized sale agreement and a power of attorney dated 29/11/1990 in favour of defendant No.2 in relation to the suit property. The power of attorney was titled as ‘irrevocable’.
2.2 The said Ratibhai who happens to be father of plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 appears to have executed another irrevocable power of attorney in favour of defendant No.1 on 17/09/1999 in relation to the suit property whereby the attorney was required to undertake the process of converting the suit property from new tenure to old tenure and thereafter, he had to execute a sale deed in favour of defendant No.2, who happens to be his father. Again, said Ratibhai with plaintiff No.1, executed one notarized agreement to sell in favour of defendant No. 2 on 17/09/1999.
2.3 Since the suit property undisputeably a new tenure land wherein there is a restriction to sell, transfer or create any third party interest in any manner as provided under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act, the owner, i.e. Ratibhai and/or plaintiffs Nos.1 to 4, as the case may be, co
