Strict construction of trust exemption: later registration could not defeat tenants' vested ownership or sustain possession claim.

Registration under the Bombay Public Trusts Act is complete only after the statutory inquiry, order, fee payment and entry in the register; a mere application does not amount to registration. Because the trust was registered only after the tillers' day, it could not invoke Section 88-B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act to defeat the tenants' vested ownership acquired under Section 32. The exemption was held to be strictly construed, and the doctrine of relation back could not divest statutory ownership already vested in the tenants, especially in proceedings to which they were not parties. The trust was therefore not entitled to the exemption, and the suit for possession was not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the trust could claim exemption under Section 88-B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 on the basis that its registration under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 related back to the date of application, so as to defeat the tenant's ownership acquired on the tillers' day and sustain the suit for possession.

Analysis: The scheme of Sections 18 to 21 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 shows that filing an application for registration does not itself amount to registration; registration is complete only after inquiry, findings, order under Section 20, payment of fees, and entry in the register, with Rule 8 of the Bombay Public Trusts Rules, 1951 reinforcing that a certificate is issued only when the trust has been duly registered. The trust here was actually registered only on 31 May 1959, after the tillers' day. Section 88-B creates an exemption and must be strictly construed. Since the tenants became owners under Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 on 1 April 1957, their vested ownership could not be divested by a later registration order in proceedings to which they were not parties. The doctrine of relation back was held inapplicable to defeat the statutory ownership already acquired by the tenant.

Conclusion: The trust was not entitled to exemption under Section 88-B in respect of the suit lands, and the suit was not maintainable.

---