Death of Principal Terminates Power of Attorney Agency; Subsequent Gift Deed Executed by Attorney is Void

The Plaintiff No. 1 (an NRI) and his wife, Ramaben (Plaintiff No. 2), purchased the "suit property" in Vadodara in 1999

The plaintiffs executed two General Powers of Attorney (GPA) in favor of Defendant No. 1 (a family friend) in 1998 and 1999 to manage their Indian affairs

Ramaben (donor of the second GPA) died in London on July 21, 2010

Despite her death, Defendant No. 1, acting as attorney, executed a registered Gift Deed of the suit property on January 5, 2011, in favor of his own son and daughter-in-law (Defendants No. 2 and 3)

The defendants claimed the gift was a settlement for unpaid loans owed by the plaintiff

The Trial Court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit for cancellation of the Gift Deed; the plaintiffs subsequently appealed

1. Whether a Power of Attorney remains valid and legally binding after the death of the principal/donor

2. Whether an agent can execute a Gift Deed of the principal's property when the Power of Attorney instrument does not specifically grant the authority to gift

3. Whether the termination of agency under Section 201 of the Contract Act is mitigated by the agent's alleged lack of knowledge of the principal's death under Section 208

The Court applied Section 201 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which mandates that an agency is terminated by the principal's death

Section 208, which dictates when termination takes effect for agents and third parties

Section 3 of the Powers-of-Attorney Act, 1882, which protects acts done in good faith without notice of the donor's death

Principle of strict construction of Power of Attorney, holding that general words cannot enlarge specific restricted powers

Section 32(c) of the Registration Act, requiring a valid character of agency at the time of presentation for registration

The High Court reasoned that under Section 201 of the Contract Act, the death of Ramaben (Plaintiff No. 2) immediately terminated the agency by operation of law; thus, Defendant No. 1 had no authority to represent a "dead person"

The Court rejected the defense of "ignorance of death" under Section 208, noting that the fiduciary family relationship between the parties made the plea of ignorance implausible and lacked good faith

Upon a strict construction of the GPA instruments, the Court found no express or implied power to "gift" the property; the documents only authorized transfers for consideration, such as sales or mortgages

The execution of a Gift Deed in favor of the agent's own relatives was an unauthorized act that exceeded the scope of the instrument

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Trial Court's judgment, and granted the relief for cancellation of the Gift Deed and permanent injunction as prayed for in the original suit