Brojendra Prasad Katakey, J.

1. This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28th November, 2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 3, Kamrup at Guwahati in Title Suit No. 346/2003, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff/appellant. The appellant as plaintiff instituted the said suit for a declaration that he is entitled to receive the pledged articles kept in Bank locker No. 23 of the erstwhile Purbanchal Bank, alongwith Rs. 10,000/- deposited for the purpose of compromise of the Money Suit No. 65/1982, and that the defendant is liable to return the said pledged articles and also for a decree for realization of the value of the property, if the defendant fails to return the pledged articles alongwith Rs. 10,000/-, apart from a decree for Rs. 2,00,000/- as damages for the wrongful detention of the plaintiffs property kept in locker No. 23, alongwith interest @ 18% per annum on the entire sum from the date of filing of the suit and @ 6% per annum from the date of the decree rill realization, basically contending inter alia that since the Money Suit No. 65/1982 filed by the present respondent as plaintiff for realization of the amount against the cash credit facilities made available to the appellant and also for enforcement of the pledged articles, namely, gold ornaments and jewellery weighing about 38 Tolas, has been dismissed, the respondent Bank cannot retain the said property. It has also been contended that an amount of Rs. 10,000/- deposited by the present appellant during pendency of Money Suit No. 65/1982 also needs to be returned, in view of the dismissal of the said suit.

2. The claim of the plaintiff has been resisted by the respondent Bank by filing written statement contending inter alia that the erstwhile Purbanchal Bank was amalgamated with the Central Bank of India, that the suit is hit by the constructive res-judicata and that since the aforesaid gold and the gold ornaments were pledged for due payment of the amount against the cash credit facilities made available to the plaintiff, the plaintiff is not entitled to get the said articles without payment of the amount due in the cash credit account, despite dismissal of Money Suit No. 65/1982 instituted by the present respondent/defendant.

3. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues for determination:-

1. Whether the suit is barred under principle of Res-judicata?

2. Whether the defendant agreed to advance to the plaintiff an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-?

3. Whether the plaintiff has admitted his liability to the cash credit loan granted by the defendant bank and inability to pay the total claim of the bank and prayed for exemption of interest?

4. Whether the defendant was know to amicable settlement of the defendant's claim in M/s. 65/82?

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to receive back the pledged goods kept in the bank's locker along with Rs. 10,000/- being part payment made by hem towards liquidation of the loan without being his loan discharged?

6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any relief as prayed for?

7. To what any other relief or reliefs the parties are entitled?

4. During trial, both the plaintiff and the defendant examined 1(one) witness each and proved a number of documents. The trial Court upon appreciation of the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, dismissed the suit by holding that since the gold and the gold ornaments have been pledged with the Bank for repayment of the dues under the cash credit account, no decree can be passed for return of those articles, unless and until the amount due and payable against the said cash credit account is paid by the plaintiff, in view of Section 176 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (in short, "1872 Act"). Hence, the present appeal.

5. I have heard Ms. S. Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and Mr. P.C. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant.

6. Ms. Sarma, learned cou