My query is in reference to the recent SC ruling in Oct 2015 about the daghter's right in ancestral property being prospective as reported by the hindu : https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/law-on-equal-right-for-daughters-in-ancestral-properties-is-prospective/article7798323.ece
In the ruling it is said that both the coparcener as well as daughter had to be living at the time of the new law coming into force i.e. 9 Sept 2005 in order for the daughter to have a claim to ancestral property.
In my case, my grandfather had died in the 1980s but there had been no distribution of our ancestral house in the city between his sons and daughters. It was only after the 2005 Amendment Act came into force that the partition case was started and my father's sisters also staked their claim.
In light of the above new judgement, would their claim still stand since the sole coparcener i.e. my grandfather was long dead and it was only his daughters who were alive at the time the 2005 act came into force. Also, if the partition case had started before the act of 2005 had come into force, would that have made any difference?