https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309358 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. en-us Wed, 19 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 27 Aug 2023 11:39:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309358 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 19 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309358