vendor of the plaintiff/first respondent was one of the defendants in O.S. No. 949 of 1961. In the suit, a preliminary decree was passed and subsequently final decree was also passed. To execute the decree, execution proceedings have been initiated in O.S. No. 949 of 1961. At this stage, the plaintiff/first respondent herein has filed the two suits for declaring the preliminary decree passed in the suit as well as the final decree as null and void. It is also to be mentioned that the plaintiff/first respondent, instead of taking appropriate legal proceedings against his vendor or vendor's vendor has filed the present suits. Taking note of the above facts, this court is of the view that the institution of fresh suits are not warranted as he purchased the property during pending of suit and also hit by principle of lis pendency. If at all the plaintiff/first respondent is having any valid defence to prove his case, he has to work out the remedy in the execution proceedings in the place of his vendor / defendant in suit O.S.No.949 of 1961, pending before the trial Court. Instead of taking such step, filing fresh suits is a clear case of abuse of process of law. It is also seen that from the year 1961, the suit in O.S. No. 949 of 1961 is pending on the file of District Munsif, Salem along with final decree proceedings in I.A.No. 1542 of 2011 in O.S. No. 949 of 1961. In such circumstances, liberty is given to the plaintiff/first respondent herein to work out his remedy against his vendor or vendor's vendor in a manner known to law.
