Judgment 1. The plaintiff is the appellant. His petition for grant of ad interim injunction has been rejected by the impugned order. 2. The suit in question was filed by the appellant for partition of the following properties as mentioned in the plaint. Village Khata Nos. Plot Nos. Area Fulwari 776 2216 0.16 dhurs with house bearing Holding No. 145 (New Holding No. 130). " 960 74 0.05 Kat has (north) out of. 281/2 decimals eastern out of 57 decimals. " 985 1460 0.17 Goushpur 51 2930 1 bigha 4 kathas 12 dhurs out of 96 decimals. " 1186 2952 4 Kathas Valued at Rs. 70,000/- Grocery shop running in the house standing over survey plot No. 2216 valued at Rs. 5,000/- Grocery shop (in the house of Manohar Paswan). valued at Rs. 25,000.00 3 The plaintiff alleged that Ram Lakhan Sao died leaving behind his two sons (the appellant and respondent No. 1) and his wife (respondent No. 2). The plaintiff claims 1/3rd share in the aforementioned properties and partition of the shops by appointment of an Advocate Commissioner asserting that all of them are members of a Joint Hindu Mitakshra Family and Respondent No. 2 its Karta. The plaintiff is running a shop in the joint family house under her direction. The defendant No. 1 is also running a shop in the rented house of Manohar Paswan. The entire savings are kept under the control and savings of the mother. The properties are also joint family properties. 4. A petition for injunction was also filed by him stating that the defendants in collusion with each other had hatched up a plan to dispose of the entire properties with some powerful persons and in fact the defendant No. 2 had already executed a sale deed at Calcutta in November, 1986 and they are further negotiating for transferring the lands in question to jeopardize his interest, to put a permanent loss and to dispossess him. All the sale deeds concerning the suit lands were made over to him by his father. He has got a prima facie case. Balance of convenience is also in his favour. 5. Notices were issued and cause was shown by the mother (defendant No. 2). All the sale deeds concerning the suit lands were made over to him by his father. He has got a prima facie case. Balance of convenience is also in his favour. 5. Notices were issued and cause was shown by the mother (defendant No. 2). It was asserted by her that she purchased the properties from her stridhan from various sale deeds as detailed in schedule-A; that she is in possession of the said properties as an absolute owner; that her name was recorded in the Revenue Records; that she pays rent and gets receipts; that neither the plaintiff nor has the defendant No. 1 any share in the said properties; that the sale deeds were taken by the plaintiff on a pretext; that she is not a member of coparcenery and accordingly her properties cannot belong to the joint family; that she is dealing with those properties as its exclusive owner and in fact she sold three items of her landed properties to different purchasers for valuable consideration but the purchasers who are in possession of those properties have not been made parties; that apart from her sons, she has got 8 daughters who are also necessary parties to the suit; that she was badly assaulted by the plaintiff and his wife; that the plaintiff has got no prima facie case; that the balance of convenience is not in his favour; that there is no question of irreparable injury; that the joint family grocery shop is being properly maintained by the joint family and hence no question of misappropriating of the income arises. She also filed documents to support her case. 6. The Court below by the impugned order after, hearing the parties; and perusing the documents filed by them, rejected the prayer of the appellant holding that unless it is held that the property standing in the name of defendant No. 2 are the joint family properties, the plaintiff cannot have any unity of title and that if the defendant No. 2 transfers the properties to any other persons then the remedy is available to him and there cannot be any irreparable loss or injury to him. 7. Mrs. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that the reasonings given by the trial Court are erroneous. The properties in question are the joint family properties. 7. Mrs. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that the reasonings given by the trial Court are erroneous. The properties in question are the joint family properties. The onus to prove that the properties belonged to defendant No. 2 was not discharged by her. Thus this Court should grant an injunction to save the properties from being transferred. 8. Mr. Keshri Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appeal is without any merit as the reasonings given by the trial Court while rejecting the appellants prayer are sound. The onus was on the plaintiff to prove that the properties in suit were joint family properties which he never discharged. There is no merit in the submissions of Mrs. Mishra. The appeal, thus, should be dismissed. 9. It is a settled law (vide S.101 of the Indian Evidence Act) that in any suit the initial onus is on the plaintiff to prove his case. However, that onus shifts if the Defendants admit the case. There is no presumption that a joint family owns joint properties as well. See AIR 1984 SC 1171 paragraph 15, AIR 1953 Patna 110. In the said view of the matter, the onus was on the appellant to prove that the properties in question were joint family properties. Thus, I find force in the submission of Mr. Keshri Singh that the onus which was on the appellant was never discharged by him. 10. A mother has no legal qualification to become a Karta of a joint Hindu family (See C.I.T. V/s. Seth Govindram Sagar Mills, AIR 1966 SC 24 ). 11. In fact, as held by a Division Bench of this Court, in Dashrath Prasad alias Damodar Prasad V/s. Deowanti Kuar, ILR (1976) 55 Pat 161, a female cannot be a member of a co-parcenery though she can be a member of a joint family. 12. In a series of decisions starting from AIR 1951 Patna 632 (Division Bench) it has been constantly laid down that the properties standing in the name of females will be presumed to be belonging to her. 13. In this case, no material has been shown that the property in question were not of the mother rather of the joint family. In the said view of the matter, I am of the view that the Court below was correct in holding that the plaintiff had no prima facie case. 14. 13. In this case, no material has been shown that the property in question were not of the mother rather of the joint family. In the said view of the matter, I am of the view that the Court below was correct in holding that the plaintiff had no prima facie case. 14. In Hazrat Surat Sah V/s. Abdul Saheb, (1988), 4 JT (SC) 232 the Apex Court laid down that if a party fails to make out any of the three ingredients, namely, the prima facie case, the balance of convenience and irreparable injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money, he would not be entitled to the injunction. 15. In the instant case having concurred with the finding of the trial Court that the plaintiff has no prima facie case, I am of the view that this appeal is without any merit and it is accordingly dismissed. 16. I, however, clarify that the findings recorded by me are only for a limited purpose for finding out as to whether the plaintiff has got a prima facie case and that they will not be binding on the plaintiff at the time of hearing of this suit. 17. No cost. Appeal dismissed.