Married daughters right in fathers ancestral property in india

Respected Mr. Vasudev,

The Hindu property statute acknowledges the idea of HUF, which refers to a group of people who are related by blood or marriage and are continuos produced from a common origin. The individuals born from human ancestors were split into two groups. Coparceners fall into the first type. 

Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which concerns with the coparcener's rights in HUF assets, was changed on September 9, 2005, with effect from that date. In terms of coparcenary privileges in HUF property, girls are now on par with sons as a result of this modification. As a result, the daughter inherits all of the privileges that come with coparcenary, such as the power to request asset division and become a Karta of the HUF.

A girl will no longer be a part of her parents' HUF after marrying, although she will remain a coparcener. As a result, if she is the oldest coparcener of her dad's HUF, she has the right to request division of the HUF assets and to become the Karta of the HUF.
Even if a wedded daughter dies before the division, her children deserve the portions she would have gotten if she had been alive at that point of the split. The grandkids will be eligible for the portions that the daughter would have earned on division if none of her kids are living on the day of division.

Regards,

Anaita Vas

dear Anaita,

appreciate your reply comment however i need precise answer. 

total is 100 guntha in 7/12; how much share will M and how much share will G will get.
 

secondly my argument to you is: refer maharashtra relinquishment act (1994)  to HSA 1956 main act. when A is expired in 1990, his 3 son already got 25% share each as per current law in 1990. remaining 25% considered as notional partition and in it, all 7 children will get equal share. this is as per current law when A died. BCD are  already enjoying possession of their property as explained below. now when laws are getting ammmended, existing/prevailing rights of person cannot be altered with. therefore maximum ammendments are prospective; to avoid creating confusions and mess in past cases.since property is not separated, it doesnt mean that ABC cant enjoy their possession with threat that laws may change. Upcoming changes in laws should not be a criteria to disturb freedom of people to stay undivided. it would be against human rights if law requires that partition has to happen to fix exact share of individual as laws are changing over time. laws may be reformed but if we want to define share of a person, we need to study law at time when father of person dies leaving behind common ancestral property and laws prevailing at that time. 

as per me, if share of G is to be fixed then at time when A died, notional partition will happen and BCD will get 25% share each and EFGH will get 1/7 th share in share of A at notional partition which is 25%. thus share of G would be 3.57% of 100 guntha which comes to 3.57 guntha and share of M would be 25% + 3.57 = 28.57/2 which comes to 14.28 means 14.28 guntha. your thoughts welcome on my argument