Beneficial interest under a purchase contract is transferable only by written transfer; the gift was completed on conveyance.

A purchaser's subsisting beneficial right under an uncompleted contract to buy immovable property is movable property and may amount to an actionable claim; it does not itself create an interest in the land. A transfer of that contractual interest requires an effective written instrument under section 130 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. On the facts described, the 1954 correspondence only requested conveyances in a nominee's name and did not transfer contractual rights, so the gift arose only on the tripartite conveyances executed on June 6, 1958. That transfer carried the purchaser's entire remaining contractual rights, including the right to obtain conveyance, possession, and, for the leased plot, rents and profits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the gift in respect of plots Nos. 14 and 15 arose in 1954 or on June 6, 1958, when the conveyance documents were executed; (ii) If the gift arose in 1958, whether it comprised the purchaser's entire rights under the contract to purchase, including the right to obtain conveyance, possession, and the attendant incidents of ownership.

Issue (i): Whether the gift in respect of plots Nos. 14 and 15 arose in 1954 or on June 6, 1958, when the conveyance documents were executed.

Analysis: A contract for sale of immovable property does not by itself create an interest in or charge on the property, but the purchaser's beneficial interest under such a contract is movable property and may amount to an actionable claim. Transfer of that interest requires an instrument in writing under section 130 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The correspondence in 1954 showed only a request, made under the original contractual term permitting conveyance in the name of a nominee, for the conveyances to be prepared in the name of the daughter-in-law. It did not evidence an assignment or transfer of the contractual rights, nor did the surrounding conduct show that possession or enjoyment had passed to her. The actual transfer of the purchaser's subsisting rights took place only when the tripartite conveyances were executed on June 6, 1958.

Conclusion: The gift arose on June 6, 1958, and not in 1954.

Issue (ii): If the gift arose in 1958, whether it comprised the purchaser's entire rights under the contract to purchase, including the right to obtain conveyance, possession, and the attendant incidents of ownership.

Analysis: By June 6, 1958, the only remaining right under the contract was the right to have a conveyance executed so as to complete title. When the municipality conveyed the plots to the daughter-in-law with the original purchaser joining as confirming party, the whole beneficial interest then subsisting under the contract was transferred. That transfer carried with it the right to possession and, in the case of the leased plot, the right to rents and profits. The value of the gifted interest was therefore to be determined by the market value of the plots as on the date of execution of the conveyances.

Conclusion: The gift in 1958 covered the purchaser's entire contractual rights, including possession and rents and profits, and its value was the market value of the plots on June 6, 1958.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered in favour of the revenue by holding that the taxable gift occurred on June 6, 1958, and that the subject of the gift was the purchaser's entire subsisting rights under the contract to purchase the two plots.

Ratio Decidendi: A purchaser's subsisting beneficial right under an uncompleted contract to purchase immovable property is movable property and an actionable claim, and a gift of that right is completed only by an effective written transfer or by the conveyance that finally passes the contractual interest and incidents of ownership.

---