14.The defendant in paragraph No.6 of the written statement has specifically admitted that he has nothing to do with the suit schedule property. He has gone to the extent of admitting that he has not made encroachment in the second schedule property, but it has been made by some other persons. The defendant further averred that the suit has been filed against a wrong person without identifying the encroachers. The said averment in the written statement will clearly establish that when the defendant has no right or title over the second schedule property, he will not be aggrieved in any manner in case of granting mandatory injunction for removal of the construction in the second schedule property. The learned counsel for the appellant had contended that one Suresh has filed the writ petition and the said writ petition has been allowed by this Court. However, the proceedings are pending in the writ appeal. This contention of the appellant/defendant would show that the defendant is defending the present suit to protect the rights of some other persons. When the defendant, even as per the admission in the written statement, has no title or possession or any claim whatsoever over the suit schedule property, the second appeal filed by the said defendant is not maintainable.
