1) When a male Hindu dies after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, having at the time of his death an interest in Mitakshara coparcenary property, his interest in the property will devolve by survivorship upon the surviving members of the coparcenary (vide Section 6).

2) A exception engrafted on proposition (i) is contained in the proviso to Section 6, which states that if such a male Hindu had died leaving behind a female relative specified in Class I of the Schedule then the interest of the deceased in the coparcenary property would devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, and not by survivorship.

3) on demise of your father leaving behind ancestral property daughters would have equal share in the property

4) if father died before 2005 , daughters would have no share in ancestral property

Sc has held that prior to 2005 amendment after joint family property has been distributed on basis of intestacy the joint family property ceases to be joint family property in the hands of those who have succeeded it and they hold it as tenants in common and not joint tenants

On what basis do you claim the property is ancestral? Was the property divided as on the date of demise of your father? If it is ancestral property then section 8 will not apply. When asking a query you should put down the facts in detail instead of speaking about judgments which you are not trained to understand.

What is your query. Please post the details for which you seek clarification instead of posting vague query for which no proper answer can be given. The supreme curt ruling in this case is not the new law, it is just a mention and interpretation of an existing law on the subject.The women are entitled to a share in their ancestral properties an equal share to their counter part men with effect from the date of the amended law came into force. The supreme court ruling reiterated that this law has no retrospective effect.

Since your father had been in possession of his share of property, it is deemed that the ancestral nature property in has hand has come to an end and it becomes his own and absolute property. Since he died intestate the property shall devolve equally on all his legal heirs and there is no exclusion of wife or daughters while distributing this property.

What do you want to clarify about the case referred by you?, Is the referred case is affecting your position anyway? The position of law has been explained properly in the above lines.

Sir, is sec.8 not applicable if the father died after 1956 act but before 2005 amendment? The S.C. judgement of march 2016 in Uttam vs saubhag Singh

Says it's applicable after 1956. Kindly clarify. I may be wrong.

So far you have not given the facts or details of your case but have been asking clarification of the case decided by supreme court. Be specific in your question so that your problems can be addressed properly.

The subject under which you seek clarification are two different ones and do not have link between them.