Since you have provided the case title as "Section 6 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956" from "Union of India - Section" dated "17 June 1956," this appears to be a request to summarize the provisions of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, rather than a specific court case. There is no "Union of India - Section" court. Therefore, I will summarize Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended in 2005.

Short Summary

Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended in 2005, deals with the devolution of coparcenary property in a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). The amendment grants daughters equal rights as sons in the HUF property by birth, overruling the previous law that only recognized male members as coparceners.

Facts

Prior to the 2005 amendment, only male members of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) were considered coparceners, having a right by birth in the joint family property. Daughters were only entitled to a share upon partition. The amendment aimed to remove gender discrimination and provide daughters with equal inheritance rights. The key fact is the existence of Hindu Undivided Family property and the desire to reform inheritance laws concerning daughters.

Issues

The main legal issues addressed by the amendment to Section 6 were:

• Whether daughters should have equal rights to coparcenary property as sons.
• Whether the amendment should have retrospective effect.
• How to deal with partitions that occurred before the amendment came into force.

Petitioner's Arguments

In legal challenges to the interpretation of the amended Section 6 (though not a single "petitioner" in the original enactment), arguments typically revolved around:

• The need for a literal interpretation of the amendment.
• The argument that the amendment should apply retrospectively, impacting all existing HUFs regardless of prior partitions.
• Concerns about unsettling settled property rights.

Respondent's Arguments

Those opposing a broad interpretation of the amended Section 6 (again, not a single "respondent" in the original enactment) argued:

• That the amendment should only apply prospectively, affecting HUFs formed or partitions occurring after the amendment's enactment.
• That unsettling already settled property rights would create chaos and hardship.
• That the amendment should not invalidate partitions already effected before its enactment.

Court's Reasoning

The Supreme Court, in various cases interpreting the amended Section 6, has generally held that:

• Daughters are coparceners by birth, having the same rights and liabilities as sons.
• The amendment is prospective in operation but applies to existing HUFs.
• Partitions that were fully completed before December 20, 2004 (the date the Bill was introduced) are valid and will not be reopened. A mere intention to partition is not sufficient; there must be a formal partition evidenced by a registered partition deed or a decree of the court.

Conclusion

The amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, grants daughters equal rights as sons in coparcenary property within a Hindu Undivided Family. While the amendment is not fully retrospective, it applies to existing HUFs, ensuring daughters inherit equally. Completed partitions before December 20, 2004, remain valid, but the courts have emphasized the need for concrete evidence of partition.