JUDGMENT

Chan Sekkeong J:

[1] This is a case stated under s 40 of the Stamp Duties Act (Cap 312, 1985 Ed) ('the Act') in relation to an indenture of assent dated 25 February 1983 ('the indenture') made between the following parties: (1) TGM and CSCC as administrators of the estate of TCB, (2) CSCC, (3) CTGC, (4) STGS and (5) TK Thye, TK Tong, TK Tuan,. TGG, TGH, TGM, TGK. The indenture recited as follows:

(a) TCB died in Singapore on 1 March 1964 intestate leaving surviving him his first widow, Yap Suat Tee (YST) and seven children by her viz the persons constituting the fifth party to the indenture, and his second widow, CSCC, and three daughters by her, CTGC, GTGL and STGS;

(b) letters of administration were granted to TKT, TGM and CSCC on 30 July 1969;

(c) YST died on 25 October 1967 intestate leaving surviving her seven children;

(d) GTGL died on 28 October 1969 intestate a spinster survived by her mother, CSCC, who became entitled to the whole of her estate;

(e) in the events that had happened, all the parties to the indenture became entitled to the residuary estate of TCB;

(f) all debts and testamentary expenses of the estate having been paid, the time had come for the winding up of the estate and the distribution of the residuary estate amongst those entitled thereto;

(g) during the lifetime of TCB, the principal wife, YST, and her children were residing at No 385 Pasir Panjang Road, Singapore, while his secondary wife, CSCC, and her children were residing at No 21 St Martin's Drive, Singapore;

(h) all the residuary beneficiaries were desirous that the two family houses be retained by their respective families and by way of family arrangement they have agreed amongst themselves that the family house No 385 Pasir Panjang Road be conveyed by way of assent to the seven children of YST as tenants in common in equal shares and that No 21 St Martin's Drive be conveyed by way of assent solely to their mother, CSCC, upon her paying the seven beneficiaries by way of equality of distribution the agreed sum of $137,133.32, the receipt of which they acknowledged.

[2] The other relevant facts for the purpose of the case are: (1) the equality payment was calculated on the basis of a market value given by an independent valuer on 11 February 1980 of $1.45m for No 385 Pasir Panjang Road and of $1.056m for No 21 St Martin's Drive, the total of which was divided by the number of distributive shares and the amount thereupon adjusted to reflect the total shares of each family; (2) the agreement to distribute the two properties in the way they were done was reached by the beneficiaries on 11 August 1981; (3) it is not disputed that the effective date of the agreement to distribute the residuary estate of TCB was 11 August 1981 and not 11 February 1980 or any other date; (4) the chief valuer has given his valuation of the two properties as at 11 August 1981 as follows: $4,167,162 for No 385 Pasir Panjang Road and $1,357,025 for No 21 St Martin's Drive.

[3] The respondent, acting under s 37 of the Act, adjudicated and assessed the indenture to (i) $10 duty under art 16(g) of the First Schedule to the Act and (ii) $19,787 ad valorem duty on $672,900 under art 26 of the First Schedule read with art 16(a). Article 16(g) prescribes duty of $10 on a conveyance of any kind not falling within paras (a) to (f). Article 26 prescribes duty in respect of any gift under s 16(1) of the Act as if it were a conveyance on sale.

[4] The appellants were dissatisfied with the assessment of the respondent and have appealed by way of case stated. As stated, the case requires the court to determine whether the indenture is chargeable to stamp duty as assessed by the respondent, and if not, to what duty it is liable.

Appellants' Case

[5] The appellants' case is that the indenture is an instrument of partition subject to stamp duty of $20 under art 35. Counsel contends that the main object of the indenture was the agreed partition of the two residential properties between the two