The facts of the case revolve around a dispute over the ownership and possession of a property following the death of Yashoda, who was the owner during her lifetime. The plaintiff claimed that he had purchased the property through a sale deed executed by the surviving heir, Buchamma, and sought recovery of possession based on his title. The defendants contended that Yashoda was the absolute owner and that the plaintiff's sale deed was not valid, asserting that the defendant no. 3 was an adopted daughter of Yashoda and thus had inheritance rights, and that the sale deed was not properly proved.

The lower courts examined the evidence and found that the adoption of defendant no. 3 by Yashoda had not been established, and that the sale deed had been executed by Buchamma, who was the sole surviving heir of the deceased Balaiah, the original owner. The trial court dismissed the suit due to the lack of proof of passing consideration and the failure to establish the sale deed's validity. The first appellate court reversed this decision, holding that the sale deed was valid and that the plaintiff was entitled to possession based on his title, as the sale deed was duly executed by the heir with authority to sell.

The High Court, in second appeal, upheld the findings that the adoption was not proven but questioned the validity of the sale deed due to the absence of examination of Buchamma. It concluded that the plaintiff should have sought a declaration of title, and since there was no serious cloud on his title, the suit for possession was not maintainable without such declaration. Consequently, the High Court set aside the first appellate judgment and dismissed the suit.

The Supreme Court, however, reversed the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the suit was based on title and not merely possession. It held that the execution of the sale deed was sufficiently established through pleadings and evidence, even in the absence of examination of Buchamma, as non-denial for want of knowledge is not a denial. The Court further clarified that passing of consideration cannot be questioned by a third party and that the defendant no. 3, being a third party, had no authority to challenge the sale deed on this ground. The Court concluded that there was no serious cloud on the plaintiff’s title, and the sale deed executed by Buchamma was valid and binding. Therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to recover possession on the basis of his title, and the appeal was allowed.