Composite instrument stamp duty depends on distinct matters; a document settling accounts was neither partition deed nor conveyance.

A document is not a partition deed or conveyance unless it records a division of co-owned property or an inter vivos transfer. Here, the recitals showed settlement of accounts arising from partnership dealings, joint ventures, reimbursements, dissolution of some businesses, and release-type adjustments, so it was neither a partition deed nor a conveyance. Because the instrument contained several separate transactions and adjustments, it comprised distinct matters chargeable under the Stamp Act on the footing of the relevant separate descriptions, with the higher duty applied where descriptions overlapped.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the document dated 5-9-1954 was an instrument of partition or a conveyance. (ii) Whether, even if not a partition deed, the document comprised distinct matters attracting stamp duty under the aggregate and higher-duty provisions of the Stamp Act.

Issue (i): Whether the document dated 5-9-1954 was an instrument of partition or a conveyance.

Analysis: The document did not record a division of property between co-owners, nor did it effect an inter vivos transfer of property. The entries, read with the explanatory affidavit, showed settlement of accounts arising from partnership dealings, joint ventures, reimbursements, dissolution of some businesses, and release-type adjustments. The recitals did not establish a partition of assets by metes and bounds or a conveyance of property from one brother to the other.

Conclusion: The document was neither a partition deed nor a conveyance.

Issue (ii): Whether, even if not a partition deed, the document comprised distinct matters attracting stamp duty under the aggregate and higher-duty provisions of the Stamp Act.

Analysis: The document embodied several separate transactions and adjustments arising out of different businesses and dealings. Such distinct matters fell within the scope of Section 5, so the instrument was chargeable with the aggregate duty applicable to separate instruments. Since parts of the document answered the description of dissolution of partnership, release, and memorandum of agreement, Section 6 required the higher applicable duty to be levied for the relevant parts. The document was therefore not taxable as a partition deed, but it remained chargeable under the appropriate composite treatment.

Conclusion: The document comprised distinct matters and attracted stamp duty on the footing of the separate applicable descriptions, with the higher duty governing where descriptions overlapped.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered by rejecting the revenue's classification of the document as a partition deed or conveyance, while holding it chargeable as a composite instrument comprising distinct matters and falling for duty under the relevant dissolution, release, and agreement entries.

Ratio Decidendi: A single document containing several separate transactions or adjustments must be charged according to the distinct matters it comprises, and it cannot be treated as a partition deed or conveyance unless it records a division of co-owned property or an inter vivos transfer of property.

---