The facts of the case stated are contained in an argument, or submission, dated the 23rd January, 1941, and are briefly as follows:-

1. The above-named Chettiar died domiciled in India, on the 13th August, 1939. He is hereinafter referred to as "the deceased."

2. At the time of his death he was the sole owner of a money-lending business, hereinafter referred to as "the R. M. business" at Telok Anson, Perak.

3. The books of this R. M. business show, inter alia, two debit items due to another money-lending business at Telok Anson, namely, O. R. M. O. M. P. L. Ramanathan Chettiar. hereinafter referred to as "the P. L. business." These items were (a) $65,280.77 on Thavanai account, (b) $14,216.15 on current account.

4. Both such businesses were carried on by agents for the principals.

5. The deceased was living in India at the time of his death, and so was Ramanathan Chettiar; and it is stated that the latter has never resided in the Federated Malay States.

The point for decision is whether allowance for these two liabilities (a) and (b) should be made in accordance with section 17 of the Estate Duty Enactment (Cap. 136), in determining the value of the estate of the deceased for estate duty purposes.

Section 17 (2) reads as follows:-

"An allowance shall not be made in the first instance for debts due from the deceased to persons resident out of the Federated Malay States (unless charged on property situate within the Federated Malay States) except out of the value of property of the deceased situate out of Federated Malay States in respect of which estate duty is paid…."

The question for decision, therefore is whether Ramanathan Chettiar (the owner of the P. L. business) is resident out of the Federated Malay States. Before considering what is meant by "resident", it is desirable to set out the history of section 17 (2).

Section 17 (2) of the Finance Act 1894 reads the same as section 17 (2) now reads, except that the words in brackets are preceded by the words "unless contracted to be paid in the United Kingdom."

In the Stamps Ordinance (Cap. 103) of the Straits Settlements 1936 Revised Edition (and in the Ordinance of 1922), these words are included in the relevant sections (sections 73 and 31) dealing with estate duty, and the sub-section there follow the wording of the Finance Act, but in the Estate Duty Enactment No. 10 of 1929 there were no such words in brackets at all and so it reads in the Revised Edition of 1936.

Finally, however, by Enactment No. 27 of 1936 the words "unless charged on property situate within the Federated Malay States" were put back into the sub-section, in brackets, but the words "unless contracted to be paid in the Federated Malay States" were not re-inserted or included in this amendment.

It is clear, therefore, that those words were omitted advisedly and not inadvertently. It is clear also that if they had been so re-inserted, the matter would be free from ambiguity.

In considering what is meant by the words "persons resident", "residence", "residing", it is clear and cannot be disputed that a person may reside, not only in different houses at the same time but also in different countries. What constitutes "residing" is a question of fact, and in some cases the interpretation may depend to some extent on the connection with which it is sought to so interpret it, e.g., franchise, rates, income tax, and estate duty.

In the primary meaning it is true that a person resides where he normally eats and sleeps, but this is a restricted meaning, and residence and situation of a business may be akin, and bear a strong analogy.

In Commissioner of Stamp Duties v Salting (1907) AC 449, it was held that in the case of two brothers, both residing in England and carrying on business by agents in New South Wales and Australia, the interest of one of them at the date of his death was liable to death duties imposed in New South Wales. In this case, the Privy Council judgment cited the cases of Laidla