KALINATH ROY Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(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:-