not in dispute that the suit schedule property belonged to one S.Venkayya and power of attorney obtained from Venkayya, the sale deed was registered in favour of the plaintiff by the first defendant. It is also not in dispute that the first defendant was an Engineer and by the time the plaintiff came to Hyderabad she was not able to maintain herself. It is also not in dispute that the plaintiff was in the house of the first defendant. The theory developed by both parties is that the plaintiff was working as a cook in the house of the first defendant, but the first defendant being a senior Government employee and also having a living spouse for the reasons best known to him was describing the plaintiff as his wife though she was said to be only a cook in his house. He did not come out with a clear case of his other relationship with the plaintiff. The fact that she was described as his wife is a mis-statement of fact, which was evidently intended to benefit him. According to the case of the plaintiff, she was originally a native of Anantaram of Prakasam District and sold ancestral properties and come to Hyderabad and with that money she has purchased the property. On the other hand, it is evidence of the first defendant that originally the property was sought to be purchased in favour of his niece-Anuradha and an agreement of sale was also entered and thereafter the sale deed was taken in the name of the plaintiff with his own funds. The lower court has considered this aspect and found that his evidence that the property was intended to be purchased in favour of Anuradha and that an agreement was entered into but subsequently the property was registered in the name of the plaintiff cannot be accepted for the reason that there was no other plea in any of the earlier proceedings.
