Lineal descendant under estate duty law was confined to direct male line, excluding a female Hindu's son for aggregation.

The Tribunal construed "lineal descendant" in its plain legal sense as descent in the direct male line, such as father to son or grandfather to grandson. On that interpretation, a female Hindu and her son were not treated as standing in such direct line for aggregation under section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The deceased being a female Hindu, her son's share could not be treated as the interest of a lineal descendant for rate purposes. The Tribunal found it unnecessary to examine the wider issues of coparcenary interest or the effect of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and the revenue's appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether, for the purposes of aggregation under section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, the share of the deceased's son could be treated as the interest of a lineal descendant of the deceased female Hindu.

Analysis: The expression "lineal descendant" was construed on its plain and legal meaning. The Tribunal held that it denotes descent in the direct male line, such as from father or grandfather to son or grandson, and that a female Hindu and her son do not stand in such a direct line of succession for the purpose of the provision. Since the deceased was a female Hindu, her son could not be treated as her lineal descendant within section 34(1)(c). The Tribunal therefore found it unnecessary to examine the wider question of the deceased's coparcenary interest or the effect of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Conclusion: The share of the deceased's son could not be aggregated for rate purposes under section 34(1)(c); the revenue's appeal failed.

---