<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1978 (11) TMI 162 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275630</link>
    <description>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&#039; day, it could not invoke Section 88-B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act to defeat the tenants&#039; 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.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Nov 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Oct 2018 15:49:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=537765" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1978 (11) TMI 162 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275630</link>
      <description>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&#039; day, it could not invoke Section 88-B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act to defeat the tenants&#039; 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.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Nov 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275630</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>