Vadodara: A power of attorney (POA) may allow someone to act on another person’s behalf, but can that authority be used to give away the person’s property after she has died?The Supreme Court has declined to interfere in a Gujarat High Court (HC) ruling that answered the question in the negative in a dispute over a 3,200 sq ft property in Vadodara’s Sayajigunj.A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Vijay Bishnoi on Sept 8 dismissed a special leave petition filed by Harihar Patel and others against the HC judgement. The apex court said it found no good ground to interfere with the judgement while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.The case involved a property at Parishram Co-operative Housing Society, identified as plot No. GH-240 and City Survey No. 1255/95 in the court records. It was purchased in 1999 by Purshotam Pankhania and his wife, Rama.The couple had given POA to Patel. But the arrangement took a crucial turn when Rama died in London on July 21, 2010.About six months later, on Jan 5, 2011, Patel executed a registered gift deed of the property in favour of his son and daughter-in-law.The Pankhanias challenged the transaction, arguing that Patel could no longer act under Rama POA after her death and, in any event, the document did not specifically authorise him to gift the property.The matter was disputed in the local civil court which dismissed the suit seeking cancellation of the gift deed on Sept 11, 2019. The Pankhanias then moved HC, which overturned that decision in July this year, observing that the agency created through Rama’s POA came to an end with her death and Patel could therefore not enter into a transaction on her behalf after July 21, 2010.The court said the termination of the agency occurred by operation of law and did not depend on the parties taking any further action to revoke the power.But the death of the principal was not the only problem.The HC also examined the contents of POA and found that there was no specific authority to execute a gift deed. The court held that a general POA could not be stretched to create a power that had not actually been granted.The defendants had sought to justify the transaction by referring to financial dealings between the parties. The HC, however, held that such financial claims could not enlarge the powers granted to an attorney holder.The court also considered the protection available under Section 3 of the POA Act for certain acts done in good faith without knowledge of the principal’s death. It found that the provision did not save the transaction in this case. The court particularly took into account the fact that the gift deed was executed and presented for registration after her death.The HC declared the Jan 5, 2011 gift deed void ab initio and set aside the civil court’s judgment.Patel and the other parties then moved the Supreme Court. Their SLP was taken up on Sept 8, but the apex court declined to interfere with the HC judgment and dismissed the petition.
