JUDGMENT

N.V. RAMANA, J.:

The appellant is before us aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, in First Appeal No. 1662 of 1996, dated 22.12.2006. The High Court has partly allowed the appeal by setting aside the judgment of trial court and declared that the 1st defendant, who is the appellant herein, was not the adopted son of late Govardhandas Laxmichand Samsuka and consequently the appellant herein was permanently restrained from representing himself as son of Govardhandas and further restrained him from naming himself as Ratanlal Govardhandas Samsuka. A brief reference to the factual matrix necessary for disposal of the case on hand are, late Govardhandas has a brother by name Chunilal Laxmichand who is none other than the father of the 1st defendant/appellant herein. Right from his childhood, appellant used to reside with his paternal uncle Govardhandas. During his life Govardhandas used to carry on business of timber in the name of defendant No. 5 initially and later he inducted into business the appellant and defendant Nos. 2 to 4 as partners. After the death of Govardhandas his wife Sundarabai who is the original plaintiff in the suit was also taken as a partner. When the other partners failed to give her share in the business, she issued notice to all the partners to give accounts of 5th defendant partnership firm and also to pay the amount of her share.

2. In the year 1984, wife and children of Chunilal i.e. brother of Govardhandas issued notice, to Sundarabai and the appellant, stating that appellant is the adopted son of late Govardhandas as such he cannot claim any share in his natural family and further sought for partition of the joint family properties, for that Sundarabai issued a reply notice denying the factum of adoption and thereafter filed the present suit i.e. Special Civil Suit No. 395/1987 for dissolution and accounts of defendant No. 5 partnership firm and also sought for a declaration that the appellant is not the adopted son of late Govardhandas. During the pendency of the suit, Sundarabai died and her daughters were brought on record.

3. The trial court, after a full-fledged trial, has partly decreed the suit declaring that the deceased Sundarabai, original plaintiff had 1/5th share in the assets and liabilities of the partnership firm and passed preliminary decree for taking accounts. But the declaration claimed by the plaintiff that appellant is not the adopted son of late Govardhandas was rejected and the trial court came to the conclusion that plaintiff failed to prove that defendant is not the adopted son of late Govardhandas. The reasoning of the trial court can be summed up as under:

a. Plaintiff failed to prove that appellant herein is not the adopted son of late Govardhandas.

b. Continuation of biological father's name over adopted father's name even after the 1973 is inconsequential in view of other evidences on record.

c. That some letters and invitations were addressed to appellant with his adoptive father's name.

d. That the priest [Chaturbuj Sharma] who is alleged to have performed the adoption ceremony has deposed in favor of the appellant.

e. Photographs taken at the time of the adoption ceremony are self-explanatory. It is to be noted that in one particular photograph appellant is seen with a garland and absence of Asha or her husband in the photographs clearly proves that adoption had taken place one day prior to the marriage of Asha [daughter of Govardhandas and Respondent].

4. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the plaintiffs carried the matter to the High Court in First Appeal No. 1662/96. The appellant herein has not questioned the preliminary decree passed for accounts and declaration that late Sundarabai is entitled to 1/5th share in 5th defendant company as such those findings have become final. The High Court, while partly allowing the appeal, concluded that the appellant herein is not the adopted son as the c