Daughters became equal co-parceners at birth

Daughters became equal co-parceners at birth, if born prior to 2005 amendment to Hindu Succession Act

He case is based on the interpretation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 2005. In various judgments passed by the Supreme Court different interpretations of Section 6 were placed by the judges, which resulted into the conflicts between the interpretations, which brought difficulties in deciding the issues relating to rights of the daughters as to ancestral property.
In Veenta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma, the High Court of Delhi granted a certificate to appeal and observed that there is a conflict between the judgments passed by the Apex court in Prakash vs. Phulvati and in Danamma vs. Amar regarding the interpretation of Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 2005. The court delivered different judgments in both the cases.
In Prakash vs. Phulvati, the respondent filed a suit in trial court claiming the partition and possession of certain percentage of ancestral property which was acquired by her father. After the death of her father she acquired the ancestral properties. According to Section 6(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 2005 she rightfully claimed his share. The case was filed in the year 1992 and was allowed. The first appeal was filed in High Court and the Court held that as the partition was not effectuated by the partition deed so the amendment Act of 2005 cannot be applied.
The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of High Court by differentiating Section 6 in Hindu Succession Act of 1956 and Act of 2005 and said even after that Act expressly did not mention the effect of the provisions to be followed. It could not be appropriate to consider it as a social legislation and apply it retrospectively.
In other related judgment, the Supreme Court held that the daughters of the deceased are entitled to 1/5th share of the property. In Danamma vs. Amar singh, the respondents filed a suit for partition against the appellant in 2002 claiming share in the ancestral property. It was submitted that appellants were not co-parceners, as they were born before the enactment of Hindu Succession Act and were married and received gold and money at the time of marriage, so they are not entitled to any share. The trail court allowed order the in favor of respondents. The High Court upheld the decision of trail court and passed the suit for partition. The appellant feeling aggrieved from the decision, filed a special leave petition under Article 136 of Constitution of India. The Supreme court in this allowed the petition and held that the appellants are entitled to 1/5th share of the ancestral property.
From the above two decision of Apex Court, the High Court of Delhi observed that there is conflict between these two judgment regarding interpretation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 2005 and follows the judgment passed in Prakash vs. Phulvati and did not pass the judgment in favor of plaintiff as her father passed away on 11-12-1999. Feeling aggrieved from the decision of High Court, Vineeta approached the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that the provisions of Section 6 of the Act provide status of co-parcenary on the daughter born before or after the amendment and these rights can be claimed by daughter as to disposition, alienation or partition of the family property, irrespective of the fact that the co-parcenary father should be alive. The Court held that the daughter must be given equal rights as son. A daughter remains a loving daughter throughout life to a father. The daughter shall remain a co-parcenor whether the father is alive or not.