The Supreme Court of India had recently referred a major legal question with regard to the property rights of women under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, to a larger Bench. The reason behind this decision is to clarify the inconsistencies in the interpretation regarding the amendments to the said Act and settle the law concerning the inheritance rights of the daughters in the Hindu family.Background of the case The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was amended in 2005 to give daughters an equal coparcenary right to ancestral property as is accorded to sons. Still, the judicial verdict has been inconsistent, thus muddying the water as far as the applicability of these rights from before is concerned. The core issue is whether daughters can claim rights in coparcenary property if the father or other coparcener had died before the amendment came into effect on September 9, 2005. Conflicting Judgments There are several conflicting judgments of the Supreme Court: In Prakash v. Phulavati (2016), the Court held that the amendment does not apply if the father had died before 2005. Danamma @ Suman Surpur v. Amar (2018), the Court held that daughters have equal rights even though their father may have died before the amendment. Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020) is a three judge Bench which clarified that daughters are coparceners by birth, and their rights do not depend on the date of death of their father. The settled partitions were, however, left unaddressed. It accepted the fact that such confusion and conflicting judgments from different lower courts needed to be brought out to a logical conclusion by an authority. The referral primarily relates to two issues: First, whether the amendment introduced in 2005 was retrospective or prospective in its applicability. Second, whether it had been effective when there were already settled inheritance rights or the father died prior to 2005. Referral Significance This decision has critical implications for women's inheritance rights in rural and patrilineal societies where this is most common. Decisive judgment by the Appellate Bench would standardize the interpretation of laws, providing uniformity and ensuring justice to women. By referring the matter to a larger Bench, the Supreme Court reiterates its commitment to filling up the gaps in interpretation and ensuring that women's rights are not violated under the Constitution. This is an important step in the strengthening of the legal framework for gender equality in property inheritance.