N. H. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) CURIOUSLY I find that the learned trial Judge and the learned appellate Judge thought that the judgment in that earlier case was not necessary and they built up the whole edifice only on the basis of the plaint and the decree. Now the decree only mentions that the suit is dismissed. For aught we know that dismissal of the suit may be because the plaintiffs suit might be premature or it may be because she had no right to file the suit at that stage. It is to be noted that her earlier suit was for challenging the sale executed by Ambaben in favour of the present defendant no. 1 who was the defendant no. 2 in that earlier suit on the ground that Bai Amba had a limited interest and she was a reversionary. Unless the judgment is there we cannot say that the matter directly in issue in the present suit was decided expressly or constructively in the earlier suit. Without laying down an absolute proposition of law that the judgment in all cases would be the sine qua non for the purpose of deciding the question of res judicata I would certainly say that more often than not it will not be possible to decide the issue about res judicata unless the judgment is there over and above the plaint and/or the written statement. Appeal allowed. .