en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Roy

The 1986 Supreme Court case did not create inheritance equality for Syrian Christian women across all of India. It addressed whether the Travancore Christian Succession Act still governed intestate succession in the territories of the former State of Travancore/Travancore-Cochin.

Reliable summaries of the case describe its effect much more narrowly:

• The Indian Express says the legal battle "ensured equal property rights for women from Kerala's Syrian Christian families" and explains that the key question was which law applied in territories that "once formed part of the erstwhile Travancore state." It further says the Court ruled that the Indian Succession Act would apply to the Indian Christian community in the "erstwhile state of Travancore."
• The Supreme Court judgment itself frames the issue as whether the Travancore Christian Succession Act continued to govern intestate succession for Indian Christians in the former State of Travancore/Travancore-Cochin.

So the claim is inaccurate because it says the judgment brought equal rights for Syrian Christian women in India, when the case's operative reach was tied to the old Travancore/Travancore-Cochin region in Kerala.

The claim says Syrian Christian women "could not inherit property," but the law described in the Mary Roy case did not bar daughters from inheriting altogether. Instead, it gave them a restricted and unequal entitlement.

Authoritative descriptions of the case explain that under the Travancore Christian Succession Act, a daughter was entitled to one-fourth of the value of a son's share or Rs 5,000, whichever was less. The Supreme Court record similarly describes the challenged rules as discriminatory because a daughter was not entitled to the same share as a son, not because she was completely excluded from inheritance.

So the problem with the sentence is not that the law was fair — it was plainly unequal — but that it inaccurately says women could not inherit at all.