K Rajasekharan (Advocate) 15 August 2020
Then the law in force before 1956 would only apply. This judgement is applicable under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act enacted in 1956.
K Rajasekharan (Advocate) 16 August 2020
What the judgement holds is that the HSA 2005 amendment act has retrospective (more specifically retroactive) effect since the birth of the daughter coparcener.
It doesn't mean that HSA is operational retrospectively before 1956.
The recent judgement decided only some limited questions that whether the father need to be alive in 2005 and since when the daughter becomes a coparcener.
The court decided that the father need not be alive in 2005 and the daughter will be eligible for equal share since her birth.
A brief account of the issues and the decisions covered by the recent judgement is available on my blog at
ravi yudha (ceo, non-profit org) 21 August 2020
a moral question to the poster who is claiming legal rights.
Did the daughters take care of their father or pay for any medical expenses? Are you just trying to exploit law to usurp property?