The section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act was amended in 2005 and gave daughters equal co-parcenary rights to that of sons in joint hindu family property, commonly known as ancestral property.
However, there are two aspects of this. One is that the property to be claimed must be ancestral and not self acquired property of the father, i.e., property should have been devolved to father by way of inheritance and not be property self earned by the father. Secondly, there must not have been a partition of the joint hindu family before 20.12.2004. If a partition has taken place before that date then court cannot undo the partition and give the co-parcenary share to the daughter.
A joint hindu family propety is called ancestral property because it passes on from one generation to another. A joint hindu family system is a patriarchal system consisting of a karta (the eldest male member) and co-parcenars (all other male members of the joint hindu family). Only male lineal acendants or descendants can form part of joint hindu family. Females have only the duty of reproducing male heirs.
Now after 2005 amendment, daughters were given equal status of co-parcenars to that of sons and they could now claim equal rights and share with respect to joint hindu family property.
But there is a caveat that the partition must not have happened before 20.12.2004. Partition is way by which a co-parcenar seeks his share in the property and as soon as the co-parcenar askf for partition then the property is divided and each co-parcenar if given his share. It does not matter whether it is only one co-parcenar or all of them seek partition. Once a partition is ought the joint hindu family breaks and the ancestral property is divided equally amongst all.
This question of partition and thereafter the impact of share of female co-parcenars came to SC in Prakash v Phulavati in 2015. The Court ruled that partition done before 20.12.2004 shall not be disturbed.