Sproule AGCJ:

By Grant 74 dated 2 January 1866 the Government of India conveyed nine acres one rood 18 poles of land in consideration of Rs. 102 annas 15 to Choa Beng Seang and Choa Kit Choon in fee.

The grantees were two of three brothers, Choa Beng Seang, Choa Beng Kay (also called Kit Choon) and Choa Beng Toh (also called Hood Toh).

The Grant described these grantees as follows:

Choa Beng Siang and Choa Kit Choon Trustees for the Chinese Burial ground of the tribe Choa, of the second part."

The consideration was said to have been paid "by the said Choa Beng Seang and Choa Kit Choon Trustees as aforesaid." The Grant was "unto the said Choa Beng Seang and Choa Kit Choon Trustees as aforesaid." The habendum was

To Have and To Hold the same unto the said Choa Beng Seang and Choa Kit Choon, Trustees as aforesaid their heirs executors administrators and assigns for ever.

The testamur clause similarly described the grantees. We have no evidence, apart from this deed, of the events which led to or immediately resulted from the Grant. Recitals in later deeds show that the Rs. 102 annas 15 were paid out of the grantees' own pocket. From this fact Mr. Koek asks me to deduce that grantees were "founders" of the charity for a burial ground for the Seh Chua.

Again, though grantees are described as "Trustees ... " the Grant itself neither creates nor declares any trust in terms. Mr. Koek asks me to deduce that there were no trusts. The facts, however, so far as they go, are capable of other construction than that the grantees were "founders" or that the grant was a mere purchase, unaccompanied by any trust. I think it is inevitable that I should hold that the description of the grantees as "Trustees of the Chinese Burial Ground for the tribe Chua" meant that the grantees had already, prior to the Grant, been appointed trustees as aforesaid, had applied for the Grant in that capacity, and were granted the land as such. I think I am entitled to say that Rs. 11 per acre for land so near the flourishing young Settlement of Singapore even in 1866, was merely a nominal price, and was so fixed of intention and because of the charitable trusts upon which it was known to be alienated.

It is not far-fetched to infer that the grantees were headmen of the Seh Chua and were nominated by the clan to be trustees of a Burial Ground for the clan, to be applied for by them; that they applied to the Government as such nominated trustees, that their application was approved, and the land granted to them on nominal terms for the purpose of such trust.

In circumstances such as these, you cannot credit the grantees with the title of "founders" merely because they paid the (not imposing) sum of Rs. 102 themselves. It does not call for much straining of inference to imagine that the sum was too insignificant to call for a levy or subscription from the clan. On the other hand, when Mr. Koek argues that the Grant of 1866 does not evidence a trust for a tribal burial ground, he can only do so by treating the repeated description of the grantees as "Trustees" as meaningless surplusage. Apart from the confirmation supplied by later deeds, I think it is sufficiently clear from Grant 74 that there was an express trust of the property for the purposes of "a Chinese Burial Ground for the tribe Choa."

Then on 28 August 1879 Beng Seang and Kit Choon purported to carve one acre three roods 02 poles out of the trust property, to be set apart as a burial ground for their own families and that of their brother Hood Toh. This strip was conveyed for the nominal consideration of Spanish one dollar to Hood Toh as trustee for named sons of the three brothers, their heirs and assigns for ever, to be used by them as a family burial ground.

This Deed contained two recitals to which I now refer. The first stated that the land comprised in Grant 74 was granted to Beng Seang and Kit Choon "as a burial ground for the tribe Choa." The second recital was

And whereas the