Third-party property in execution cannot be attached when genuine pre-Suraj Lamp transfer documents and possession support the objector.

A registered general power of attorney, sale-related documents and possession evidence showing a genuine 2006 transaction could not be ignored in execution proceedings merely because of Suraj Lamp, whose observations were held prospective and not applicable to invalidate prior genuine transactions. The decree holder relied on an unregistered agreement, while the record did not establish any lawful link between the judgment debtor and the objector's property. Since the property was shown to belong to a third party and the objection under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC had to be decided on merits, the execution could not proceed against it. The objection was maintainable and should have been accepted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the objector's registered general power of attorney and purchase transaction of 2006 protected the property from execution of the decree obtained on the basis of an earlier alleged agreement, and whether the objection under Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure ought to have been allowed.

Analysis: The objector produced a registered general power of attorney, sale-related documents and possession evidence showing a genuine transaction completed in 2006. The judgment relied on Suraj Lamp but held that the observations in that decision did not invalidate genuine transactions entered into before it and that its operation was prospective. The decree holder's claim rested on an unregistered agreement and the execution of the decree proceeded against property of a third party who was not shown to have any lawful connection with the judgment debtor. The record also showed that the decree had been passed ex parte against the judgment debtor without proper contest, while the objector's title and possession were not disproved. In execution proceedings, the court was required to decide the objector's claim on merits and could not proceed against property that was not established to belong to the judgment debtor.

Conclusion: The objection was maintainable and should have been accepted; the decree could not be executed against the objector's property. The appeal was allowed and the impugned orders were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A genuine registered transfer-related transaction executed before the prospective ruling in Suraj Lamp cannot be disregarded in execution proceedings, and a decree cannot be enforced against property that is shown to belong to a third party rather than the judgment debtor.

---