Does Suraj Lamp cancel earlier GPAs?

No. Suraj Lamp is prospective and does not automatically invalidate genuine pre-2009 arrangements.

What must an executing court do with objections?

Hear and decide them carefully within the same execution to prevent injustice, especially where third-party rights are claimed.

Was the money decree itself disturbed?

No. The decree remained; only the attachment over the objector’s property was set aside.

Maya Devi v. Lalta Prasad

Q: Is a registered GPA equal to a sale deed?

No. But with possession and bona fides, it can protect against attachment in execution when the decree is between others.

Q: What is the one-line exam rule from this case?

Suraj Lamp is prospective; a genuine, registered GPA with possession can defeat attachment in a money decree between others.

Case Snapshot

CASE_TITLE: Maya Devi v. Lalta Prasad, (2015) 5 SCC 588
PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: Order XXI objections, General Power of Attorney, Suraj Lamp prospective
SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: execution proceedings, attachment, sale agreement vs GPA, specific relief
PUBLISH_DATE: 01-11-2025
AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi
LOCATION: India

Supreme Court judgment concept art for GPA and execution law

```

Quick Summary

The Supreme Court protected a bona fide, registered GPA of 12 May 2006 with possession, against attachment in a money decree between others. Suraj Lamp (2009) was applied prospectively, not to this earlier transaction. Execution objections under Order XXI must be seriously heard in the same suit to prevent injustice.

Issues

Which carries more weight here: the registered GPA (12/05/2006) or the alleged sale agreement (03/11/2003)?
Does Suraj Lamp apply to the facts, and if so, how?
Was the suit property truly part of the money recovery decree?

Rules

Order XXI objections must be meaningfully heard within the same execution to avoid miscarriage of justice.
The executing court must carefully test third-party claims and documents.
A genuine, registered GPA coupled with possession can shield property from attachment when the decree is between other parties.
Suraj Lamp invalidated “sale by GPA” as a mode of transfer but operates prospectively; bona fide pre-judgment arrangements are not automatically void.

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline showing GPA execution, sale agreement, and execution proceedings

03 Nov 2003: Sale agreement alleged between judgment debtor and decree holder.

12 May 2006: Registered GPA executed in favour of Maya Devi; she claims actual possession.

Money Decree: Ex parte decree for ₹3,40,000 + interest in favour of decree holder.

Execution: Decree holder seeks to realize amount by attaching the suit property.

Objection: Maya Devi files Order XXI objection—says property is hers via GPA + possession.

Executing Court: Rejects objection, relies on Suraj Lamp (2009).

High Court: Affirms dismissal, again citing Suraj Lamp.

Supreme Court: Appeal by Maya Devi allowed.

Arguments

Appellant (Maya Devi)

Registered GPA (2006) + possession makes her the real, protected claimant.
Suraj Lamp (2009) cannot defeat an earlier bona fide arrangement.
Execution relates to a money decree; property not the real subject of that suit.

Respondent (Decree Holder)

GPA does not create ownership; attachment should proceed.
Suraj Lamp shows “sale by GPA” is invalid as a transfer mode.
Alleged 2003 agreement ties property to the debtor.

Judgment

Held: Appeal allowed. Orders of the Executing Court and High Court set aside. Objections upheld without disturbing the money decree.

Suraj Lamp operates prospectively; it does not upset genuine pre-2009 arrangements.
Registered GPA with possession, in these facts, shields the property from attachment between others.
Order XXI objections must be carefully decided within execution proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

A bona fide, registered GPA coupled with possession (pre-Suraj Lamp) can protect the holder from attachment in an unrelated money decree; Suraj Lamp is prospective and cannot defeat such prior arrangements.

Why It Matters

Guides executing courts on fair hearing of third-party objections.
Clarifies the reach of Suraj Lamp and protects bona fide pre-2009 dealings.
Useful for exams on execution, attachment, and document priority.

Key Takeaways

Prospective rule: Suraj Lamp does not undo genuine pre-2009 arrangements.
GPA + possession: Can be a shield in execution when decree is between others.
Order XXI duty: Objections must be fully and fairly decided within execution.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “GPA GUARD, SURAJ LATER.”

GPA is genuine and registered.
Guarded by possession and fairness in execution.
Suraj applies later—prospective only.

IRAC Outline

Issue	Does the 2006 registered GPA with possession defeat attachment despite the 2003 agreement and Suraj Lamp?
Rule	Order XXI objections require careful hearing; Suraj Lamp is prospective; genuine GPA + possession can shield against attachment.
Application	GPA predates Suraj Lamp; appellant in possession; the decree is a money decree between others—attachment unfair.
Conclusion	Objection allowed; orders below set aside; decree remains otherwise untouched.

Glossary

Order XXI (CPC): Rules dealing with execution of decrees, including objections and attachments.
GPA: General Power of Attorney—authorizes acts on behalf of the owner/grantor.
Suraj Lamp: Supreme Court ruling (2009/2011) that “sale by GPA” is not a valid transfer mode, applied prospectively.