Please refer to various decisions on the subject to enlighten yourself 

We don't the requirement of your client. 

1. The property inherited by women under coparcenary rights shall be her own property and the coparcenary rights will not extend to her next generation unlike the coparcenary rights of a Male Hindu. 

2. Since the property inherited by the Hindu female under the said provisions of law becomes her own and absolute property,  she can dispose the property in any manner as per her own will and wish. 

She need not have to take the consent or permission from her next generation children or anyone to dispose the property. 

The coparcenary rights of Hindu female will extinguish and not extend beyond her.

3. Section 14 of HSA 1956 provides similar law to the Hindu female towards the property inherited by her from her father who is reported to have died intestate. 

Whereas the latest amendment is for the coparcenary rights of ancestral property,  that is the difference. 

The present interpretation by SC for the same is clear that she will have the right in the same irrespective of the 2005 bar and death of her father before 2005. Secondly the same will also have retrospective effect. Thirdly only legal exception will bar her from the right in said property that is legal partition. Decree of court etc

1) , by virtue of the substituted provision what the Parliament intendEd to do is first to declare that, on and from the commencement of this Amendment Act in a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, the daughter of a coparcener shall by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son and have the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son. Therefore, the Mitakshara law in respect of coparcenary property and co-parcenary consisting of only male members came to an end.

2) The daughter would hold property to which she is entitled as a coparcenary property, which would be construed as property being capable of being disposed of by her either by a will or any other testamentary disposition.

3) she does not need consent children consent to dispose the property 

No detail answers can be provided as the platform does not pay a single rupee to any of the lawyers who answer here

If you want detail replies then you may approach a competent lawyer over phone consultation or otherwise 

S. 14 of HSA overrides the 1937 act which only gave limited interest to the widow. So instead of limited life interest the female can treat the property inherited by her from her husband as her absolute property 

S. 6(2) merely says that whatever undivided interest a daughter is entitled in a HUF property can be bequeathed by her under a Will 

Q 1. Please provide the explanation for the Hindu succession Amendment Act section 6-Sub section 2 regarding in detail?

A. Before this amendment the patriarchal approach was adopted and daughters were excluded from having share in the ancestral properties. This section allowed daughters to receive equivalent right in the property of her father and her ancestors as to other coparcenars.  This section states that she will have right to take her share in the ancestral property and would be allowed to dispose the same as testamentary deposition to her successors. Eg. Y is father of A, B, C and X. A, B and C are son whereas X is daughter of Y. Y dies intestate then X will get 1/4th of share in the property of Y which is equivalent to A, B, C. and as per sec 6(2) of HSA, X will be righteous to dispose of her 1/4th share so received by her in testamentary disposition in favor of her son and daughters. 

Q 2. In the Section 6, Sub section 2 provides freedom to the Hindu women to dispose of the coparcenary property by her without consent from her children's and any others for the property she got based on the section 6 coparcenary property?
A. Yes, qua her portion of succession validly claimed and proved to fall into her entitlement. Partition is one of the way in which such title can be claimed and gained. 

Q 3. The Hindu succession Act section 14, sub section 1 have the similar purpose for women then what is the different purpose for the Hindu succession act section 6-sub section 2?
A. In the case of Bai Vijaya Vs.Thakuribai Chelabhai reported in AIR 1979 SC 993, Hon'ble supreme Court of India rightly observed in context of Section 14 of the Hindu succession Act, 1956 that "This section recognises equality of sexes and elevates the women from subservient position in the field of economy to a higher pedestal. Now the Women can enjoy and have full powers as regards disposal of property held by them. They are to be taken as owners without putting any artificial limitations on their right of ownership."
Now explanation to sub section 1 of Section 14 defines property to include: both movable and immovable property acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance or devise, or at a partition, or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance, or by gift from any person, whether a relative or not, before, at or after her marriage, or by her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription, or in any other manner whatsoever, and also any such property held by her as stridhana immediately before the commencement of this Act.
Section 6 is specific and only for "Devolution of Coparecenary property". reading the language of both these sections it is very transparent for understanding the legislative intent. Coparcenary property is not a property where female can claim exclusivity of her rights over it and therefore Sec. 6(2) permits her to claim her share equivalent to other coparcenars in the property whereas sec. 14 provides for her powers to claim exclusivity of such share and other property as mentioned in the explanation to Sec. 14(1) of the HSA which includes movables and Stridhan which completely and exclusively belongs to female.
In simple terms, Sec. 6(2) gives right to female to claim her share in coparcenary property and Sec. 14 permits her to save it at her exclusivity. 

That is the latest stand of SC the specific section information is turned mundane by the latest judgement of SC

Thanks for your appreciation 

While thanking you for appreciating me for my opinion to your query,  I am of the further opinion that if you are convinced with the opinions given by few lawyers,  you can revert with more queries to seek clarification thereon instead of seeking clarification from some other lawyers for their opinions given earlier. 

We are here to help you to understand the law more clearly if at all you have any further doubts in this regard. 

Thank you. 

I knew this place for assisting aggrieved litigants. Now even professionals are posting queries for commercial gain.