On August 31, 2026, the Delhi High Court rejected the brother‑in‑law’s claim that he owned the 26‑bigha Najafgarh plot and directed him to remit ₹1.01 crore plus 8% annual interest to the surviving daughters of the deceased co‑owner. NEWPAR The original land purchase in 1985 involved four women who each held a one‑fourth undivided share. When the woman in question was living in West Bengal, she granted the brother‑in‑law a general power of attorney (GPA) that, among other things, allowed him to sell the property in her name. NEWPAR In 2011, the brother‑in‑law exercised that GPA and sold the entire parcel to a public limited company for ₹6.95 crore. The sale deed recorded the four women as absolute owners, while the GPA holder signed as agent. The woman received only ₹71.99 lakh—a fraction of her one‑fourth share—leaving ₹1.01 crore outstanding. NEWPAR The court’s judgment hinged on the Supreme Court’s 2012 Suraj Lamp ruling that a GPA is an instrument of agency, not conveyance. It also cited the brother‑in‑law’s income‑tax return, which omitted the ₹6.95 crore capital gain, undermining his claim of full payment. The High Court declared the GPA “not executed for any consideration” and refused to accept the brother‑in‑law’s assertion that he and his wife had purchased the land. NEWPAR The daughters, represented by Advocates Vikas Arora, Ms. Rashi Priya and Vansh Arora, now face a payment deadline of June 30, 2027. The case underscores the legal weight of registered documents and the limits of a GPA in property transactions. NEWPAR "The court’s decision is a clear reminder that a power of attorney does not transfer ownership," said senior attorney Adnan Siddiqui. The ruling will likely prompt other families to scrutinise similar GPAs in pending land sales.