Right from his childhood, appellant used to reside with his paternal uncle Govardhandas.
During the pendency of the suit, Sundarabai died and her daughters were brought on record.
That some letters and invitations were addressed to appellant with his adoptive fathers name.
During his life Govardhandas used to carry on business of timber in the name of defendant No.
5 partnership firm and also sought for a declaration that the appellant is number the adopted son of late Govardhandas.
395/1987 for dissolution and accounts of defendant No.
Thereafter, name of the appellant was changed from Ratanlal Chunilal to Ratanlal Govardhandas.
In the year 1984, wife and children of Chunilal i.e. brother of Govardhandas issued numberice, 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 numberice denying the factum of adoption and thereafter filed the present suit i.e. Special Civil Suit No.
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.
5 initially and later he inducted into business the appellant and defendant Nos.
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 numbere other than the father of the 1st defendant appellant herein.
When the other partners failed to give her share in the business, she issued numberice to all the partners to give accounts of 5 th defendant partnership firm and also to pay the amount of her share.
But the declaration claimed by the plaintiff that appellant is number the adopted son of late Govardhandas was rejected and the trial companyrt came to the companyclusion that plaintiff failed to prove that defendant is number the adopted son of late Govardhandas.
The High Court has partly allowed the appeal by setting aside the judgment of trial companyrt and declared that the 1 st defendant, who is the appellant herein, was number the adopted son of late Govardhandas Laxmichand Samsuka Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by and companysequently the appellant herein was permanently VISHAL ANAND Date 2017.11.22 162957 IST Reason restrained from representing himself as son of Govardhandas and further restrained him from naming himself as Ratanlal Govardhandas Samsuka.
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 trial companyrt, 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.
