Judgment Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. The respondents filed a suit for possession and for injunction restraining the defendants from putting the suit property to any use and constructing any building except for Bunga Mazhabi Sikhs. Injunction was also sought to restore Bunga Mazhabian by constructing building of Bunga for stay of pilgrims and recitation of Siri Guru Granth Sahib. "Bungas are hostels where pilgrims coming from various parts of India to pay a visit to the Golden Temple stay. These hostels were founded by rich men, especially by the Rajas and were dedicated to the public as wakf property. There was appointed in each bunga a custodian called bungai whose duty was to read Granth Sahib and arrange for the comfort of the pilgrims staying in the bunga and keep the bunga in a proper order. This shows that the bungas are partly religious and partly charitable institutions and the office of Manager may, therefore, be said to partake of the nature of a religious office. The manager, if he has any powers at all, may himself be the bungai or he may appoint some one else to perform the duties of the bungai who has to read the Granth Sahib. His other duties are to look after the visitors and to take proper care of the building." (as held in Committee of Management of Gurdwaras, Amritsar and Ors. V/s. Indar Singh and Ors., AIR 1933 Lah 1041 and approved in Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar and Ors. V/s. Raja Shiv Rattan Dev Singh and Ors., ). 2. Plaintiff No. 1 is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and other plaintiffs are members of the Society. Their case is that Bunga Mazhabian was a religious and charitable institution for the stay of Mazhabi Sikh pilgrims coming from various places of India to pay a visit to Siri Darbar Sahib. Manager of the Institution is called Bungai, who reads Siri Guru Granth Sahib and arranges stay of pilgrims. A part of land was acquired vide award dated 10.4.1956 for Siri Darbar Sahib and the reference Court vide order dated 20.8.1957 held that Mazhabi Sikh Community had control of the Bunga and Baba Harnam Singh was a Bungai, who was held entitled only to the interest on the compensation. Right of Mazhabi Sikhs was acknowledged in an agreement dated 12.6.1948 executed by Harnam Singh. Right of Mazhabi Sikhs was acknowledged in an agreement dated 12.6.1948 executed by Harnam Singh. In spite of this, Inder Kaur, widow of Harnam Singh, Iqbal Singh son of Harnam Singh and Prithipal Singh, son of Sardul Singh sold the property of Bungai to Siri Darbar Sahib vide sale-deeds dated 11.11.1974 and 2.1.1975. The said sale-deeds were void as Iqbal Singh and Inder Kaur had no right of alienating the property of the Bunga, which property, belonged to Mazhabi Sikh community as claimed in para 8 of the preliminary objection of the written statement of defendant No. 1? 12. Has the civil Court no jurisdiction? 13. Relief." 3. Main issue between the parties were Issue No. 6. 4. The trial Court decreed the suit. It was held that the suit property was Bunga and belonged to Mazhabi Sikh Community and Harnam Singh was merely a Bungai who had no right to alienate the suit property and, therefore, sale-deeds in favour of Siri Darbar Sahib did not confer any title. 5. Hence this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that evidence of witnesses of the plaintiffs was not reliable to hold that the property belonged to Mazhabi Sikh Community. 7. There is no merit in this contention. The appellant purchased the suit property vide Exs.D-1 and D-2 from Harnam Singh who admittedly was merely a Bungai. In land acquisition proceedings, the reference Court held Harnam Singh merely to be a Bungai. He, thus, has no right to execute sale-deed of the suit property. Finding of the trial Court to the effect that the suit property was Bunga Mazahabian is, liable to be affirmed. 8. It is well-settled that by its very nature, Bunga property is inalienable. Reference may be made to a Division Bench judgment of the Lah High Court in Committee of Management of Gurdwaras, Amritsar V/s. Narain Singh and Ors., AIR 1936 Lah 623, approving earlier judgment to the following effect:- "According to Hindu law there is a distinction between an absolute dedication of property to religious uses and an imperfect trust. In the case of the latter the nature of the property remains unchanged and its application at the discretion of the founder. In the case of the latter the nature of the property remains unchanged and its application at the discretion of the founder. Such imperfect trusts are common enough in the Punjab in the case of Serais, and Dharmasalas, and such an institution as the Bunga as to which the dispute has now arisen may very well partake of the same nature." There is thus, no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.