Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Kiran Suri, Sr. Adv. Mr. S.J. Amith, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Kumar, Adv. Ms. Vidushi Garg, Adv. Mr. Purvesh Buttan, Adv. Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta, AOR Mr. TSR Venkataramana, Sr. Adv. Mr. G.S. Mani, Adv. Janaki Devi, Adv. Mr. Abhay Singh, Adv. Mr. Ramesh Singh Thakur, Adv. Mr. R. Sathish, AOR Ms. Manju Jetley, AOR Mr. Vivek Solshe, Adv. Mr. Amol B. Karande, AOR Mr. Narendra Rao Thaneer, Adv. Mr. Shivang Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Yadav, Adv. Ms. Palak Mathur, Adv. Mr. Varun Solshe, Adv. Mr. Satyajit A. Desai, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Gautam, Adv. Mr. Abhinav K. Mutyalwar, Adv. Mr. Gajanan N. Tirthkar, Adv. Mr. Vijay Raj Singh Chouhan, Adv. Ms. Anagha S. Desai, AOR Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, AOR Ms. Jaikriti S. Jadeja, Adv. Vatsalya Vigya, Adv. Mr. Sdhakul R. Ghatole, Adv. Mr. Mahesh P. Shinde, Adv. Ms. Rucha A. Pande, Adv. Mr. Aman Shreyas, Adv. Mr. M. Veeraragavan, Adv. Ms. Yashaswimi Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Ranbir Singh Yadav, AOR Mr. Nikhil Majithia, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. V. Mohana, Sr. Adv. Ms. Bhavya Pandey, Adv. Ms. Sreha Botwe, Adv. Mr. Abid Ali Beeran P, AOR Mr. Vivek Chib, Sr. Adv. Mr. B. Ragunath, Adv. Ms. N.C. Kavitha, Adv. Mr. Vijay Kumar, AOR Mr. A.I.S. Cheema, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kunal Cheema, AOR Ms. Ruchita Kunal Cheema, Adv. Mr. Shivam Dube, Adv. Mr. Raghav Deshpande, Adv. Ms. Abha R. Sharma, AOR Mr. Apoorv Kurup, AOR Mr. Chandra Prakash, AOR Mr. P.B. Suresh, Adv. Mr. Vipin Nair, AOR Mr. S. Rajappa, AOR Mr. Avinash B. Amarnath, AOR Mr. Mukesh K. Giri, AOR Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR Mr. Samrat Krishnarao Shinde, AOR Mr. Shirish K. Deshpande, AOR Ms. Rucha Preavin Mandlik, Adv. Ms. Harsimra Kaur Rai, Adv. Mr. Sharangouda N. Patil, Adv. Mr. Mohit Gautam, Adv. Mr. Apoorv Sharma, Adv. Mr. Harrish Ahmed, Adv. Mr. Shanthakumar V Mahale, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Mahale, AOR Ms. Jyotika Kalra, AOR Mr. Aditya Jha, Adv. Ms. Annvesh Deb, Adv. Mr. Lakshmi Raman Singh, AOR Mr. H. Chandra Sekhar, AOR Mr. Sriram P., AOR

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:

1. A child born from a marriage that is null and void under relevant law is deemed legitimate if they would have been so had the marriage been valid. Such a child has rights only to the property of the parents and not to any other persons' property (!) (!) (!) .

2. When a Hindu dies after the commencement of relevant amendments, their interest in joint family property governed by Mitakshara law devolves through testamentary or intestate succession, not by survivorship. The interest is determined on the basis of a notional partition that would have taken place immediately before death (!) (!) (!) .

3. Shares in coparcenary property increase with the birth of a coparcener and decrease with death. The devolution of a Hindu's interest in such property on death is now primarily through testamentary or intestate succession, not survivorship, especially after recent amendments (!) (!) (!) .

4. Children born out of void or voidable marriages, once conferred with legitimacy, are entitled only to the property of their parents and not to the property of any other relatives or third parties. Their rights are confined to the property of the parents, and they cannot claim rights in ancestral or coparcenary property during the lifetime of the parents (!) (!) (!) .

5. The legislative intent behind conferring legitimacy on children born from void or voidable marriages is to treat them equally with other legitimate children in terms of inheritance rights, but such rights are limited to the property of the parents. This confers a legal fiction that such children are legitimate but does not automatically make them coparceners or give them rights in joint family property beyond their parent's estate (!) (!) (!) .

6. The institution of coparcenary under Mitakshara law involves collective ownership, where rights are acquired by birth, and interests fluctuate with births and deaths. Recent amendments recognize equal rights for daughters as coparceners, but confine their property rights to the property of their parents, not to ancestral or joint family property in general (!) (!) (!) .

7. The devolution of property for a Hindu after amendments is based on testamentary or intestate succession, not survivorship, and the property is deemed to be divided as if a partition had taken place immediately before death. Children conferred with legitimacy are entitled to their share in such property, but only within the scope of the property of their parents (!) (!) (!) .

8. The interpretation of relevant statutes emphasizes that rights of children conferred with legitimacy are limited to the property of their parents and do not extend to the property of other relatives or the broader coparcenary unless explicitly specified. The legal fiction of notional partition is used to determine the child's share in the property of the deceased parent (!) (!) (!) .

9. The legislative amendments aim to promote gender equality and remove discrimination, conferring coparcenary rights on daughters and clarifying the devolution of interest in coparcenary property, with the understanding that such rights are confined to the property of the parents and not to ancestral or joint family property during the lifetime of the parents (!) (!) (!) .

10. Overall, the legal framework balances the conferment of legitimacy and coparcenary rights with the limitations imposed by law, ensuring that such children have rights to their parents' property but do not automatically gain rights in the broader ancestral or joint family property unless specific conditions are met.