Spes Successionis Meaning

Spes successionis is a Latin legal phrase that refers to the possibility of inheriting someone’s property after their death. It deals with the potential right of an heir or relative to inherit property through a will or legal succession. According to the Transfer of Property Act, this expectation does not grant any actual ownership interest in the property and cannot be transferred.

This concept is not considered a transfer since the property itself is not currently owned by the person making the expectation. It is merely a future potential right to the property. For instance, an heir may eventually inherit property if certain conditions are met. The Transfer of Property Act 1882 governs property transfers comprehensively and restricts certain forms of transfer to uphold equitable principles.

Meaning of Spes Successionis 

Spes successionis is an expectant right to inherit property upon a person’s demise. Spes successionis is the mere chance of succeeding as an heir to someone’s estate, contingent on specific circumstances such as surviving the deceased and the absence of a valid will. 

This term is particularly relevant when discussing uncertain inheritances, where the individual’s claim is based on the expectation rather than a confirmed entitlement. Spes successionis embodies the legal recognition of an heir-apparent’s or a legatee’s potential interest in the property, which may materialise upon the fulfilment of certain conditions. 

The doctrine of spes successionis recognises that such an expectation does not confer an immediate ownership stake or right over the property. In essence, spes successionis serves as a legal concept that addresses the speculative nature of future property inheritance, highlighting the distinction between a present fixed interest and a prospective contingent right in matters of succession.

Spes Successionis and Transfer of Property Act 1882

Transfer of Property Act 1882 regulates transfers carried out by the actions of individuals and revises existing regulations without introducing new legal principles. The law explicitly states that it pertains only to transfers executed by parties and does not apply to transfers that occur through legal processes. Consequently, it does not cover transfers through court auctions, forfeiture, insolvency-related acquisitions, government grants or transfers through intestate succession.

The primary goal of this Act is to align the regulations concerning property transfers among living individuals and the inheritance of such property. Additionally, this law complements the Indian Contract Act of 1872, as many property transfers originate from contractual agreements between parties.

Essentials of Valid Transfer

For a valid transfer:

• The property must be transferable (Section 6)
• The transferor must be competent to Transfer (Section 7).
• The transferee must be competent.
• The transfers must be according to the provisions of the act

Spes Successionis under Section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act

According to the general rule in Section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act, property rights with an interest can be transferred. This rule is based on the principle “Alienation Rei Prefertur Juri Accrescendi,” which means that the law favours the ability to transfer property rights over accumulating them. Thus, any attempt to restrict an owner’s ability to transfer their property rights is prohibited by law. However, if a person without valid ownership interest attempts to transfer property rights for personal gain against public policy, such transfers are not allowed.

Section 6(a) of the Transfer of Property Act explains spes successionis and specifies the non-transferability of certain property rights. Apart from this section, all other properties are generally transferable under the act. To claim non-transferability of a property right outside of Section 6, a person must provide evidence of established usage and custom.

In case of Samir Kumar Haldar vs. Nirmal Chandra Banerjee, when the transfer pertains to the actual property itself rather than the anticipation of inheriting as an heir apparent, it cannot be characterised as a transfer based solely on a speculative chance of succession. In situations where an individual has been absent and presumed deceased for a significant period, a property transfer executed by their brother – who is actively occupying and enjoying the property – should not be considered void under the concept of transfer by spes successionis.

Scope of Spes Successionis

Exceptions to the principle of transferability exist in instances where the law prohibits the transfer of property, forming deviations from this general rule. Section 6 encompasses ten exceptions (designated as clauses a to i) that render certain properties non-transferable.

Objective of Spes Successionis under Section 6(a)

Section 6(a) of the Act excludes the potential succession rights of an heir apparent from being classified as transferable property. This concept, often referred to by its Latin term “Spes successionis,” involves instances where a transferor lacks a valid title to the property and anticipates a future chance or has a personal interest in its enjoyment. Such transfers contravene public policy and are considered unlawful and deceitful.

Illustration of Section 6

Consider a scenario where a son envisions inheriting his father’s property. His interest in the property is based on an uncertain hope that may or may not materialise. To avert potential future claims or disputes, the law prohibits such transfers to occur.

Essentials of Spes Successionis

Spes successionis under the Section 6(a) of the Act includes:

• Chance of an heir-apparent succeeding the estate.
• Chance of a relation obtaining legacy on the death of a kinsman
• Any other mere possibilities of a like nature

The Potential Succession of an Heir-Apparent

An heir-apparent is someone who seems likely to inherit property in the future but is not yet the recognised legal heir. This concept of spes successionis is based on the principle “Nemo Est Heres Viventis,” indicating that a living person cannot have an heir.

For example, a father and son can inherit each other’s property. If the father passes away first, the son becomes the apparent heir and inherits the property. However, if the son were to pass away before the father, he cannot inherit the property. The uncertainty about who will pass away first prevents the son from being considered an actual heir; he is only an heir-apparent.

Conditions for an Heir-Apparent to Succeed

• The son outlives the person in question (propositus).
• The propositus dies intestate, without leaving a will.
• It’s also possible that the father made a will stipulating that the property would not go to the heirs but to someone else after his death. In this case, before the propositus’s death, the chance of the heir-apparent acquiring the property is a potential future interest.

This future right does not grant any immediate entitlement to the heir-apparent. It cannot be treated as a present, fixed right over the property. Consequently, it is considered non-transferable.

In the case of Shamsudin vs. Abdul Hoosein, the Bombay High Court ruled that if an heir-apparent settles property before the propositus’s death, agreeing not to claim a share, the transfer is invalidated by the principle of spes successionis and is void. Despite the execution of the deed, the heir-apparent would still obtain their share since the transfer was void from the beginning. However, any monetary exchange in such a transaction must be reconciled.

Rights of Reversioners under Old Hindu Law

A reversioner is an individual who gains property rights from a widow after her death. This interest held by the widow for her lifetime is a mere chance of obtaining the property and falls under spes successionis. Reversioners are so named because their inheritance rights are suspended during the widow’s lifetime and only come into effect upon her death, provided they survive her. Therefore, Hindu reversioners have no property rights during the widow’s lifetime and must also outlive her to inherit. As a result, these rights are non-transferable.

In the case of Annada Mohan Roy vs. Gour Mohan Mallik, where a Hindu reversioner attempted a transfer, the Privy Council determined that due to the nature of spes successionis, an agreement or transfer would not hold legal force. Such agreements are considered void.

Chance of a Legacy 

Section 6(a) also stipulates that the potential to receive an inheritance upon the death of a relative is not subject to transfer. This refers to the anticipation of inheriting specific properties through a will. In India, the legal principles surrounding wills are firmly established: a will becomes effective upon the death of the testator, not when it is initially drafted. Nonetheless, the date of drafting a will holds significance, as the most recent will takes precedence if multiple wills are present. The property is awarded to the legatee mentioned in the most recent will.

Consequently, when an individual executes a will, the legatee – whoever that may be – possesses only a future possibility of inheritance. This is because we cannot ascertain definitively which will is the latest and the legatee might not survive the testator. Thus, it amounts to a mere expectation of obtaining the property. Individuals such as friends, relatives or others who may potentially receive property through a will have a lower likelihood of succession compared to legal heirs. As a result, this form of expectancy is not transferable.

Any Other Possibilities of Like Nature 

Another possibility of a similar nature encompasses any other potential interest or property that shares the same level of uncertainty as the chances of an heir apparent or a legatee acquiring property through a will is also part of spes successionis. The underlying concept behind this clause is to prevent the transferability of properties that represent future uncertain interests, as such transfers would contravene legal principles. 

Thus, not only the prospects of an heir apparent and a legatee fall under this category, but any property lacking a fixed right of the transferor. The notion of obtaining such property is comparable to winning a prize or lottery in a competition. Other properties falling within this category can be evaluated using the ejusdem generis rule.

In the case of Devi Prasad vs. A.H. Lewis, a dispute arose over servants’ wages. The Allahabad High Court determined that future wages, before being earned by the servant, constitute possible interests and cannot be sold, attached or transferred.

Illustration 

Suppose a fisherman agrees to transfer a fish from his next catch. This transfer would be void ab initio because it concerns a future possible interest. The fisherman might or might not catch any fish in his next attempt. Similar to an heir apparent’s interest in property, the fisherman has no stake in the fish until they are actually caught.

Right to Receive Future Offerings 

Disagreements have arisen, leading to divergent opinions among various high courts. Offerings made to a temple or shrine represent beneficial interests and therefore constitute property. In the case of Digambar Tatya Utpat vs. Hari Damodar Utpat, the court established that offerings are indeed property and a priest’s share in the net balance of such offerings already made to an idol can be attached.

Calcutta High Court’s perspective in Puncha Thakur vs. Bindeswari Thakur states, “The right to receive future offerings is an uncertain future right, as it is based on the chance that a worshipper will make an offering at the temple. Hence, it is a mere possibility and cannot be transferred.”

On the contrary, the Allahabad High Court in Balmukund And Anr. Vs. Tula Ram held that future offerings are not as uncertain or variable and can be categorised within the scope of law, thus considering them transferable.

Nonetheless, the Supreme Court settled the matter in Badri Nath & Anr vs. Mst. Punna (Dead) By Lrs & Ors, asserting that the right to receive offerings is associated with duties beyond personal qualifications, making it transferable and inheritable. This determination is not contingent on the possibility referred to in Section 6 of the Act. The case pertained to a dispute over future offerings at the Vaishno Devi Ji temple.

Conclusion

The doctrine of spes successionis, a pivotal concept in legal jurisprudence, navigates the intricate realm of property inheritance and anticipation. This doctrine underscores the distinction between a present, concrete entitlement and a future, uncertain possibility of succession. Through a prism of careful legal analysis, it addresses scenarios where potential heirs or legatees stand on the threshold of inheriting property contingent on specific conditions. 

As a safeguard against premature or unwarranted transfers, spes successionis prevents the hasty conversion of speculative interests into enforceable rights. Its essence lies in acknowledging the delicate balance between certainty and speculation in matters of property transfer, ensuring that only established entitlements find their way into the realm of transferability. Thus, the doctrine of spes successionis encapsulates the essence of cautious legal interpretation, poised at the intersection of potential legacies and the preservation of equitable principles.