IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. RSA No. 172 of 2001 Date of Decision : March 10 , 2011 Balia …Appellant-plaintiff. v. Satya …Respondent-defendant. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the appellant : Mr. Bhupender Ahuja, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Debinder Ghosh, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J (Oral). This appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure arises out of the judgment and decree dated 30.6.2000 passed by learned District Judge, Chamba in Civil Appeal No. 69 of 1999 titled as Balia vs. Satya, affirming the judgment and decree dated 28.6.1999 passed by learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Dalhousie, in Civil Suit No. 57 of 1994 titled as Balia vs. Satya. 2. The present appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:- “7. Whether the deceased being in possession of the suit land was not competent to make the will of 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 the suit land in favour of the Appellant? when it has been specifically mentioned in the Ex.P-8 will of the deceased that he gives ownership of all his moveable and immovable property as well as his possessory right only to the Appellant and excluded any other person? “ 3. Plaintiff’s suit for declaration stands dismissed by the Courts below by way of concurrent findings of fact on the ground that the suit land, of which Sh. Prabho was not the owner, could not have been willed by him in favour of the plaintiff by way of Will (Ext.P-8). 4. Courts below have concurrently held that the suit land is owned by the State of Himachal Pradesh. This is also evident from the revenue record (Ext.P-3). Possession of the testator was illegal. Rights, by way of adverse possession had also not fructified in favour of the occupier. An illegal occupant has no vested right in himself to transfer his interest in favour of any person. Hence the Courts below rightly dismissed the plaintiff’s suit. Consequently, the question of law is answered accordingly. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal stands dismissed. March 10, 2011. (Sanjay Karol) (rana) Judge.