Pith and substance doctrine upheld the Bombay Public Trusts Act's application to a registered society.

A society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 is not a corporation or quasi-corporation for Entry 44 of List I because the Act does not expressly incorporate it, and its provisions on property vesting, suing and being sued, continuation of proceedings, recovery, and dissolution were treated as consistent with an unincorporated society under Entry 32 of List II. Applying liberal interpretation of legislative entries, reconciliation of overlapping powers, and the pith and substance doctrine, the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 was upheld as legislation in substance regulating public religious and charitable trusts under Entries 10 and 28 of List III. Its application to a society formed for religious or charitable purposes was valid despite incidental overlap with Entry 44.

---

---

Issues: Whether a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and having objects not confined to one State is a corporation or quasi-corporation within the meaning of Entry 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, or an unincorporated society within Entry 32 of List II; and whether the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 validly applies to such a society as a public trust.

Analysis: The Society Registration Act does not expressly incorporate societies registered under it. Its provisions as to vesting of property in trustees or in the governing body, the mode of suing and being sued, continuation of proceedings, recovery against the society's property, and disposal of assets on dissolution were treated as indicating that registration did not confer corporate status. The Court also applied the settled principles of constitutional interpretation of legislative entries, including liberal construction, reconciliation of overlapping powers, and the pith and substance doctrine. The Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 was viewed in substance as legislation for the regulation of public religious and charitable trusts, a subject falling within Entries 10 and 28 of List III. The inclusion of a society formed for religious or charitable purposes within the definition of public trust did not make the Act invalid, even if there was incidental overlap with Entry 44.

Conclusion: A society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 is not a corporation or quasi-corporation for the purpose of Entry 44 of List I, but an unincorporated society under Entry 32 of List II. The Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 validly applies to such a society, and the challenge to its applicability fails.

Final Conclusion: The statutory scheme governing public trusts prevails, and the appellant society remains subject to the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 despite registration under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the wider geographic scope of its objects.

Ratio Decidendi: A law whose pith and substance is regulation of public religious and charitable trusts falls within the legislative competence of the State or Concurrent Lists, and a registered society does not become a corporation merely by reason of registration under the Societies Registration Act, 1860.

---