Thanks for the reply.
Asides, as per one of the article in indianexpress.com, it is mentioned that, "Supreme Court sets 2005 cut-off on women right to ancestral property. The court said the father would have had to be alive on September 9, 2005, if the daughter were to become a co-sharer with her male siblings."
In a ruling that will restrict the right of women seeking equal share in ancestral property, the Supreme Court has said that the 2005 amendment in Hindu law will not give property rights to a daughter if the father died before the amendment came into force.
The court held that the amended provisions of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, could not have retrospective effect despite it being a social legislation.
Does this carry different meaning, kindly clarify.