JUDGMENT C.K. Prasad, J. 1. This is plaintiffs second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment of reversal. Plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title as also for recovery of possession in relation to 13.55 acres of land situated in village Sattorniya in the district of Sehore. IIIrd Civil Judge, Class-II, Sehore by judgment and decree dated 28.07.1984 passed in Civil Suit No. 24-A of 1984 decreed the suit. Defendant No. 1 Kailash Chandra aggrieved by the same preferred appeal and the IInd Addl. District Judge. Sehore, by judgment and decree dated 9.1.1989 passed in Civil Appeal No. 25-A/1987 allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. Plaintiffs being aggrieved by the same have preferred this appeal and by order dated 21.07.1989, appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law :- Whether under the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the judgment rendered in Civil Suit No. 106-A/1975 operates res-judicator ? 2. Admitted facts of the case are that plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 namely Sakribai and Ramkibai are the daughters of deceased, Dhansingh whereas plaintiff No. 3 Narayan Singh is his brother. Disputed land was recorded in the name of defendant No. 2 Gendibai who has sold the same to defendant No. 1 Kailash Chandra. Plaintiff filed a suit impleading defendant No. 2 Gendibai as a party in the Court of Civil Judge, Class-II, Sehore which was registered as Civil Suit No. 106-A/1975. It was decreed ex parte. Defendant No. 1 Kailash Chandra has also filed a suit against defendant No. 2 and others for perpetual injunction which was registered as civil Suit No. 114-A/1977 which was decreed in his favour by judgment and decree dated 05.02.1979. Defendant No. 2 Gendibai has also filed the suit impleading defendant No. 1 as party which was registered as Civil Suit No. 128-A of 1976. But the same was dismissed for default. 3. According to the plaintiffs, plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 being the daughters of Dhansingh and plaintiff No. 3 being his brother are the only successors to his property, after his death in the year 1975. According to the plaintiff, total area of 13.15 acres of land at village Satoroniya was recorded in the name of Dhansingh in revenue records which was the ancestral property of the plaintiffs. According to the plaintiff, total area of 13.15 acres of land at village Satoroniya was recorded in the name of Dhansingh in revenue records which was the ancestral property of the plaintiffs. Said Dhan Singh, sometime before the death, kept defendant No. 2 Gendibai as his servant which developed into an illicit relationship, but no marriage / Nathra took place between them. According to the plaintiffs, after the death of Dhansingh, by playing fraud and declaring herself to be the wife of Dhansingh, Gendibai got her name recorded in the revenue records. It is the assertion of the plaintiffs that as soon as they came to know about the same, they filed Civil Suit No. 106-A of 1975 against her which was decreed in their favour by judgment and decree dated 02.06.1987. According to the plaintiffs, said judgment and decree operates as res judicata. It is the assertion of the plaintiffs that in March 1977 in the absence of the plaintiffs, defendant forcibly took possession of the disputed land. The suit was heard ex-parte, but was contested by defendant No. 1, Kailash Chandra. 4. According to defendant No. 1, he has no knowledge as to whether the plaintiffs are the successors of the deceased Dhan Singh. According to him, Dhan Singh died in the year 1974 and his name was recorded over the disputed land of village Sattorniya. His further assertion is that about 20 years before his death, Dhan Singh handed over 6.7 acres of land to defendant No. 2 on 'Shikmi' and since then she being in possession of the land, according to the prevalent law, she became its owner. His further stand is that defendant No. 2 Gendibai sold 6.77 acres of land to him by registered sale deed dt. 18.6.1976 on consideration of Rs. 6500/- According to this defendant, plaintiffs were never in possession of the disputed land nor they have paid any rent of the same. He further pleaded ignorance about filing of suit by plaintiffs against defendant No. 2 and he has further stated that he was not a party in the said suit. According to him, after purchase of the land, he took its possession from defendant No. 2 and since then he is in continuous possession of the same. He further pleaded that he is a bona fide purchaser and the sale deed has never been challenged before any competent civil Court. According to him, after purchase of the land, he took its possession from defendant No. 2 and since then he is in continuous possession of the same. He further pleaded that he is a bona fide purchaser and the sale deed has never been challenged before any competent civil Court. According to him, it is a collusive suit by plaintiffs and defendant No. 2. His further stand is that the suit filed by him bearing No. Civil Suit No. 114-A/1977 against defendant No. 2 were decreed and so long as the said decree is not set aside, plaintiff suit is not maintainable. 5. Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed various issues and on consideration of the material placed found that the judgment and decree dated 26.02.1977 passed in Civil Suit No. 106-A/1975 operates as res judicata against defendant No. 1. However, the lower appellate Court reversed the aforesaid view and found that the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 106-A/1975 does not act as res judicata. 6. Shri Naik appearing on behalf of the appellants submit that the lower appellate Court committed an error of law in holding that the judgment does not act as res judicata. It is relevant here to state that the lower appellate Court has assigned various reasons for holding that the judgment does not act as res judicata and those reasons are that the plaintiffs did not file copy of the plaint, written statement and issues of the said suit, judgment was exparte, defendant No. 1 was not a party in the suit. Further earlier suit was in relation to the property of different village, suit was not for declaration that Gendi Bai, defendant No. 2 is not the wife of Dhan Singh and defendant No. 2 sold the land to defendant No. 1 prior to the institution of the suit. Mr. Naik appearing on behalf of the appellants has assailed the aforesaid reasonings given by the lower appellate Court, while holding that judgment does not act as res judicata. 7. Mr. Mr. Naik appearing on behalf of the appellants has assailed the aforesaid reasonings given by the lower appellate Court, while holding that judgment does not act as res judicata. 7. Mr. Shroti appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that it will be academic to consider each of the reasons given by the lower appellate Court for holding the judgment to be not operating as res judicata as on proved fact that the land was sold to defendant No. 1 prior to the institution of the earlier suit, shall itself make the principle of the res judicata inapplicable. Having perused the record, I am of the opinion that the whole assumption of defendant No. 1 that the disputed land was sold to him by defendant No. 2 prior to the institution of the suit is incorrect on facts. Reliance of Mr. Shroti in the statement made in paragraph-4 of the written statement, in this connection, is absolutely misconceived. In the aforesaid paragraph, defendant No. 1 has stated about the sale deed executed by Dhan Singh in favour of defendant No. 2 on 08.04.1970 (Ex. D. 4) and the same does not relate to the sale made by defendant no. 2 in favour of defendant no. 1. In fact, in paragraph 6 of the written statement, this defendant has clearly stated that he has purchased the land from defendant no. 2 by registered sale deed dt. 18.6.1976. Civil Suit No. 106-A/1975 was thus filed prior to the transfer of property by defendant no. 2 in favour of defendant no. 1. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this submission of Shir Shroti. 8. (sic). Naik appearing in support of the appeal submits that the lower appellate Court committed an error of law by holding that in absence of plaint, written statement and the issues of this earlier suit, principle of res judicata cannot be made applicable. However, Shri Shroti appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that for applicability of principle of res judicata it was incumbent upon the plaintiffs to place on record the aforesaid documents and in the absence thereof, the lower appellate Court is right in holding that the principle of res judicata does not apply. In support of his submission, Shri Shroti has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in case of Baboosha v. Municipal Corporation Indore, 1983, Weekly Notes, 409. In support of his submission, Shri Shroti has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in case of Baboosha v. Municipal Corporation Indore, 1983, Weekly Notes, 409. He has drawn my attention to the following passage from the said judgment :- Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we have come to the conclusion that the appeal deserves to be allowed. In the instant case, the trial Court had on 12th March 1969, framed 2 issues based on the pleadings of the parties and the case was thereafter fixed for recording evidence. The proceedings indicate that the hearing of the case was adjourned from time to time and ultimately on 17.04.1973, without recording any evidence, the trial Court heard arguments on issue No. 5 relating to 'res judicata' and dismissed it. The plaint, written statement and the issues framed in civil Original Suit No. 4-A of 1961 are not on record. All these documents are necessary for a proper appreciation of the issue in question. The finding of the trial court on Issue No. 5, without any evidence cannot be sustained in law. 9. In my opinion, it is not a rule of law that for applicability of the principle of res judicata, one is required to place on record the copies of plaint, written statement and issue. In a case where the judgment' placed on record gives sufficient indication of the case of the parties, the issues and its decision, notwithstanding the absence of the aforesaid documents, still the principle of resjudicata can be invoked. Judgment dated 26.2.1977 (Ex. P-1) contains in detail the pleading of the parties, the issues and the decision by the Court on these issues. One of the issues in the said suit was as to whether defendant no. 2 was married in 'Nathra' form to Dhan Singh and whether she was his wife. The learned judge recorded his finding that defendant no. 2 was not married to Dhan Singh nor she is the wife, hence she has no right over the property of Dhansingh. Thus, the judgment itself is crystal clear in relation to the case of parties and the issue decided in the same and hence it cannot be said that the principle of res judicata cannot be attracted in the absence of plaint, written statement and issues. Thus, the judgment itself is crystal clear in relation to the case of parties and the issue decided in the same and hence it cannot be said that the principle of res judicata cannot be attracted in the absence of plaint, written statement and issues. In my opinion, the whole object of the presence of aforesaid documents on record for applicability of principle of res judicata, is to understand the stand of the parties, relief sought for in the suit and and the issues coming for consideration. In case, these factors can be deciphered from the judgment itself, simply on the ground that these documents were not filed, will not make the principle of res judicata inapplicable. 10. Shri Naik submits that it is not correct to say as has been said by the lower appellate Court that because the earlier judgment was exparte, it cannot operate as res judicata. It is relevant here to state that defendant no. 2 herein Gendibai appeared in the earlier suit and thereafter abstained herself. Judgment and decree was passed in her absence. In my opinion, after defendant no. 2 has appeared In the earlier suit and later on abstained herself, she has to blame herself in not defending the suit. In my opinion an exparte decree is a decree on merit and the same cannot be ignored in a subsequent suit only on the ground of its being exparte. This question pointedly came for consideration before this Court in the case of Gatoley Lal v. Mathura Prasad, 1998 (2) M.P.L.J. 299 in which it has been held as follows :- Reference in this connection may be made to the case of Ramo Barman Vs. Dagripriya Kachari, AIR 1992 Gau. 72 . It has been held that an exparte decree operates as res judicata between parties in any subsequent suit, because an ex parte decree is a decree on merit. Reference in this connection may also be made to the case of The Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras vs. V. Krishnaswami and another, AIR 1975 Mad 167 , wherein it has been held that though the dismissal for default of a suit would not amount to an adjudication on merits, however, the position is different when the case is decided ex parte. Therefore, a dismissal of suit in default would not amount to res judicata, while an exparte judgment would operate as such. Thus, in my opinion, the lower appellate Court erred in holding that the earlier judgment shall not operate as res judicata as the same was an exparte decree. 11. Another reason assigned by the lower appellate Court to hold that the principle of res judicata is not applicable is that defendant no. 1 was not a party in the suit. Mr. Naik contends that this reasoning of the lower appellate Court is absolutely erroneous. Shri Shroti, however, contends that as defendant no. 1 was admittedly not a party in the earlier suit, the principle of res judicata is wholly inapplicable. 12. Having heard Shri Naik for the appellants and Shri Shroti for the respondent, I am of the opinion that the reasoning given by the lower appellate Court is absolutely erroneous. Defendant no. 1 claims title over the property by virtue of sale deed executed by defendant no. 2. Purchase was made by him after the institution of the earlier suit. Thus, defendant no. 1 is claiming title through defendant no. 2 who was a party in the earlier suit. In my opinion, defendant no. 1 cannot get out from the rigour of the principle res judicata only on the ground that he was not party in the earlier suit. 13. Lower appellate Court is further not right in saying that the earlier suit was in relation to the land of different villages. Judgment of the earlier suit (Ex. P-1) clearly shows that the suit has been filed in relation to the land situated in village Sattorniya and in the present case also land of the said village is the subject matter of dispute. 14. Another ground assigned by the lower appellate Court for in-applicability of principle of res judicata is that in the earlier suit issue as to whether Gendibai, i. e. defendant no. 2. is the wife of Dhansingh was not one of the issues. From the judgment of the earlier suit it appears that issue no 5 (a) was as to whether Gendibai was kept of Dhansingh ? While discussing the aforesaid issue the learned Judge found that she was not married to Dhansingh in Natra form nor she was the wife of Dhansingh. From the judgment of the earlier suit it appears that issue no 5 (a) was as to whether Gendibai was kept of Dhansingh ? While discussing the aforesaid issue the learned Judge found that she was not married to Dhansingh in Natra form nor she was the wife of Dhansingh. Thus, in the earlier suit the status of Gendibai vis a vis Dhansingh was directly in issue and the lower appellate Court is not right in saying that this was not an issue in the earlier suit. 15. From the discussion aforesaid, it is apparent that each of the reasonings given by the lower appellate Court in holding that the principle of res judicata is not applicable, are erroneous. In my opinion, lower appellate Court erred in law in holding that the judgment rendered in C. S. No. 106-A/1975 shall not operate as res judicata. Substantial question of law, thus, framed is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. 16. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court are set aside and that of the trial Court restored. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost. Appeal allowed