Back
2026 Supreme(Guj) 1303
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ILESH J. VORA, R. T. VACHHANI, JJ.
Purshotam Ranchhodbhai Pankhania & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Harihar Ambalal Patel & Ors. - Respondent
First Appeal No. 259 of 2020
Decided On : 15-07-2026
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Property and Agency Law
Act Referred
POWERS OF ATTORNEY ACT : S.3
POWER OF ATTORNEY ACT : S.3
REGISTRATION ACT : S.32(c)
Headnote
(B) Appeal - Appellate court - Duty to examine evidence - Where lower court relies on assumptions rather than evidence, appellate court must intervene to correct perversity. (Para 34)
Facts of the case:
The appellants challenged the dismissal of a suit seeking cancellation of a registered gift deed. The deed was executed by an attorney holder in favor of his relatives after the death of one of the principals. The lower court had dismissed the suit, relying on financial transactions and the assumption of authority.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the agency terminated upon the death of the principal. The attorney holder lacked specific authority to execute a gift deed, and the act was not performed in good faith. The lower court's reliance on assumptions regarding financial settlements was erroneous.
Issues: Whether an agency survives the death of the principal and whether an attorney holder is authorized to execute a gift deed in the absence of an express clause.
Ratio Decidendi: The death of the principal terminates the agency by operation of law. An agent cannot act for a deceased principal, and a power of attorney must be strictly construed. Since the instrument did not authorize the execution of a gift deed, the transaction was void.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr SP Majmudar(3456)
For the Respondent: Mr Ronak B Raval(5665), Mr. S. L. Patel(8520), Rule Served
JUDGMENT :
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI)
1. By way of this appeal, the appellants – original plaintiffs challenge the judgment and decree dated 11/09/2019 passed by the learned 16th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara in Special Civil Suit No.60 of 2016 whereby the suit filed by the appellants – original plaintiffs seeking cancellation of the registered Gift Deed dated 05/01/2011 came to be dismissed.
2. For the sake of brevity and convenience, the parties reiterate to the proceedings would be referred to as per their original status (as plaintiffs appellants and defendants-respondents) before the learned Civil Court.
3. The brief facts emerging from the pleadings are as under:
3.1. The plaintiff No.1 was the non resident Indian. It is the case of the plaintiff that the property bearing registered Plot No.GH-240, City Survey No.1255/95 ad measuring fts., property sq. 3200 in Sayajigunj at Parishram Co-operative Housing Society (herein after referred to as the “suit property”) was purchased by him and his wife deceased Ramaben Purshottambhai Pankhania, from Smt. Maniben Chimanbhai Desai through Power of Attorney Holder Shri Kiritbhai Chimanbhai Desai (Defendant No.1), on 16/09/1999 by registered Sale Deed No.5011 and payment has been made through Cheque and since then the said property has been in the occupation and possession of the plaintiff.
3.2. It is further the case of plaintiff that the defendant No.1 Harihar Ambalal Patel being in developed relationship with the plaintiff and shown interest to conduct business in partnership and asked for the Power of Attorney of the plaintiff and annexed for that formalities would be completed whenever the plaintiff resides outside the India. That, on 15.07.1998 the powers given to the defendant No.1-Harihar Ambalal Patel and since then the Power of Attorney was given to Harihar Ambalal Patel and it remained with defendant No.1.
3.3. It is further the case of the plaintiff that, on 21.07.2010 the wife of present plaintiff Ramaben Purshottambhai Pankhania died at London and therefore, due to shock of the death of his wife, the plaintiff could not ask for the power of attorney and it remained with the defendant No.1; however the power vested through Power of Attorney came to be stand still and no such power of attorney can be utilized for any further purpose.
3.4. It is further the case of the plaintiff that, defendant No.1 without having any right over suit property by using said power of attorney and in collusion with other defendant/s executed registered Gift Deed dated 05/01/2011 in favour of defendant No.2 and 3 (son and daughter-in-law) without having any right or power. It is further the case of the plaintiff that the defendant No.2 and 3 are not in any way in relationship with the present plaintiff; neither there was any blood relationship and therefore the execution of the Gift Deed dated 05/01/2011 in favour of defendant No.2 and 3 cannot in any manner said to be legal and genuine and as a result thereof, the plaintiff instituted present suit to get declaration for cancellation said registered Gift Deed dated 05/01/2011 and for permanent injunction with allied relief.
3.5. Upon issuance of Notice/summons, the defendants have appeared and represented their case and filed the written statement contending that the facts stated in the plaint are not true and correct, as also denied all the facts in toto. In all, it is contended that since the plaintiff was required to start the business and in need of money, he requested the defendant No.2 to provide for financial help while assuring of return thereof, defendant No.2 gave 78,000 Pound which later on were not returned by the plaintiff. It is further stated by the defendant that plaintiff has also transferred certain amount from the company account to his personal account and legal notice was issued by defendant no.2 to the plaintiff wherein the plaintiff suggested that in lieu of loan amount, transferred and the suit prop
