Here section 29(A) provides that in a join Hindu family governed by mitakhara law.

The daughter of a co-partner in her own right in the some manner as the son. She
will have the same right on the fathers property including the right survivorship. The
benefit is not extended to a daughter married before commencement. But in this
case the daughter was married after commencement of this act. so under the section
29(A) shows, the daughter has equal right to share in the fathers property. Section 6
of the principle act which deafs with devolution the interest of the female co- partner
and rule of survivorship. From the commencement of the Hindu secession
amendment act of 2005 the daughter becomes a co-partner by birth and has
all rights in the same manner as the son. So she has the same rights and Liabilities in
the said co-partner property as that of a son. So, under section 29(A) of Hindu
succession amendment act of 1986 shows, The daughter has equal right to share in
the fathers property among the sons. That too in this case Shekar Shetty gave a clear
clarification in the will. He made a will his own self, infavour of his daughter. So this is
enough to her for possessing the property. 

Here I would like to relay upon one case:- In Ramesh Verma Vs Smt. Lajesh Saxena,
[ AIR 1998 MP 46]  
Gwalior Bench of Madhya Pradesh High court held that on the death of male hindu
after the commenument of this act, his widow, son, and daughter (Thought married)
being in class I are entitled to succession. So, in this case also done the samw thing.
Natuarally being on that out agter fathers death daughter also entitle the fathers
property. But in this (will) case the testator gave the full clarification on that will, that
property is belongs to his daughter. So she had the right to possess the property. 

The Supreme Court on 11th aug 2020 held that daughters, like sons, have an equal
birthright to inherit joint Hindu family property. The court decided that the
amended Hindu Succession Act, which gives daughters equal rights to ancestral
property, will have a retrospective effect.

“A daughter always remains a loving daughter. A son is a son until he gets a wife.
A daughter is a daughter throughout her life,” Justice Arun Mishra, heading a
three-judge Bench, authored the judgment.

The judgment agreed with lead arguments made by senior advocate Bishwajit
Bhattacharya that the substituted Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956
confers the status of ‘coparcener’ to a daughter born before or after the amendment
in the same manner as a son. Coparcener is a person who has a birthright to
parental property.
Since the right to coparcenary of a daughter is by birth, it is not necessary that the
father should be alive as on September 9, 2005. The court has thus overruled an
earlier 2015 decision.

The judgment on a batch of appeals against the 2015 verdict came on the issue
whether the amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, granting equal rights
to daughters to inherit ancestral property would have retrospective effect.

The court, in its 121-page judgment, said the statutory fiction of partition created
by proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as originally enacted
did not bring about the actual partition or disruption of coparcenary. It also
clarified that an unregistered oral partition, without any contemporaneous public
document, cannot be accepted as the statutory recognised mode of partition.

“However, in exceptional cases where plea of oral partition is supported by public

documents and partition is finally evinced in the same manner as if it had been
affected by a decree of a court, it may be accepted,” the Bench held.