Write short notes on “The Doctrine of Factum Valet”

Question: Write short notes on “The Doctrine of Factum Valet”.

Find the question and answer of Hindu Law only on Legal Bites. [Write short notes on “The Doctrine of Factum Valet”.]

Answer

The Doctrine of Factum Valet, also known as the Doctrine of Validity, is a principle of law that holds that a legal act or transaction, which is otherwise invalid due to non-compliance with legal formalities or requirements, may still be considered valid if it has been performed and the facts or circumstances surrounding it show that it should be upheld. In other words, the Doctrine of Factum Valet upholds the validity of an act or transaction based on the fact of its having been done or performed, even if it did not conform to the formal legal requirements.

The doctrine has its roots in the Roman Law principle of "factum valet quod fieri non debuit," which translates to "an act done that ought not to have been done is valid." This principle was later adopted by the courts in various common law jurisdictions, including India.

The Application of the Doctrine of Factum Valet depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. It is based on the principle that if an act or transaction has been performed, and it has been acted upon by the parties involved, it is deemed valid despite the lack of compliance with legal formalities.

For example, if a person sells their property to another person without complying with the statutory formalities such as registration or payment of stamp duty, the sale deed would be considered invalid. However, if the buyer has taken possession of the property and made payments to the seller, the Doctrine of Factum Valet may apply, and the sale may be deemed valid.

The Doctrine of Factum Valet is particularly relevant in cases where strict compliance with formalities or requirements may cause undue hardship or injustice to one of the parties. It is also used to prevent fraud and protect the legitimate expectations of parties who have acted in good faith.

In India before the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 had come into place there was no specific law or regulation that provided guidelines with regard to the validity, capacity, ceremonial requirements etc. of Hindu marriages.

The British governed the personal law in accordance with the Dharmasastra and used the doctrine of factum valet to overcome any contravention that occurred with the breach of any guidelines of the scriptures. It was however used only when a breach had occurred with respect to the texts that were directory in nature and this doctrine could not be held valid or would not be effectual when a breach had occurred with respect to mandatory texts.

The doctrine of factum valet comes from a Roman Maxim 'factum valet quod fieri non debuit' and found its way into the Hindu law through the authors of Dayabhanga and was recognized by the followers of Mitakshara school. Factum valet means that an act that should not have been done becomes valid when it's done.

As held in the case of Ram Harakh v. Jagar Nath And Ors., AIR 1932 All 5, in order to attract the application of the doctrine of factum valet, the essential conditions which must be present in the case are:

“(1) That the marriage was performed between two people belonging to the same caste or to certain recognized subdivisions of the said caste;
(2) that these two people did not stand to each other as relations within the prohibited degree; and
(3) that the marriage was performed with the essential ceremonies including the final ceremony of the saptapadi. We refrain from making any pronouncement whether marriage may be challenged on the ground of fraud or force, the point not arising in the case.
Where these conditions are fulfilled, the marriage is not liable to avoidance upon the ground that the consent of the father, the paternal uncle, or any other preferential male relation had not been obtained prior to its celebration. The consent of such relations is no part of the marriage ritual.”

However, the Doctrine of Factum Valet is not an absolute principle, and it has certain limitations. The validity of an act or transaction cannot be upheld if it is contrary to law or public policy, or if it results in unfairness or injustice. Moreover, the doctrine cannot be used to circumvent the provisions of the law or to legitimize an illegal or immoral act.

In another case, A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, AIR (1988) SC 1531, the Supreme Court observed that the Doctrine of Factum Valet cannot be used to uphold an illegal or unconstitutional act, and it cannot be applied in cases of fraud or misrepresentation.

The Doctrine of Factum Valet is a principle of law that upholds the validity of an act or transaction based on the fact of its having been done or performed, even if it did not conform to the formal legal requirements. The doctrine is based on the principle of fairness and equity, and it is used to prevent injustice and protect the legitimate expectations of parties who have acted in good faith. However, the doctrine has certain limitations, and it cannot be used to legitimize an illegal or immoral act, or to circumvent the provisions of law.

• Hindu Law – Notes, Case Laws, And Study Material
• Test Series for Competitions