The doctrine of factum valet is a well-established legal principle in Indian law, rooted in both ancient Hindu legal traditions and modern jurisprudence. Derived from Latin, factum valet means "the fact that is done shall prevail." In legal terms, it asserts that once an act is accomplished, it shall be considered valid despite procedural irregularities or minor violations in the process, provided there was no fraudulent intent or illegality. This doctrine has profound implications in family law, especially in the context of marriage, inheritance, and property, where it is often applied to uphold transactions or decisions that might otherwise be questioned.

Origins of the Doctrine
The concept of factum valet has its origins in ancient Hindu law. Traditional Hindu legal scholars like Manu and Yajnavalkya laid down principles supporting the idea that actions completed in good faith and in substantial compliance with societal norms should not be invalidated due to minor procedural irregularities. This principle aimed to maintain societal stability and uphold the legitimacy of actions taken within the family and community.

In modern Indian law, factum valet is primarily applicable in family law, especially in questions regarding marriage validity, adoption, and inheritance. Courts apply this doctrine to avoid undermining settled familial relationships or property dispositions that were created in good faith. The rationale is to prioritize the legitimacy and stability of social and familial relations over strict adherence to procedural norms.

Key Principles of the Doctrine

• Finality of Actions: The doctrine supports the notion that once an action is completed, it is often better to recognize its validity than to disrupt established relationships or property arrangements.
• Good Faith and Public Policy: The application of the doctrine is contingent upon the action being undertaken in good faith, without any illegality or fraud.
• Promotion of Stability: It helps avoid disruption in familial and social structures by upholding actions that are completed, even if some procedural deviations occurred.

Application in Indian Family Law
The Indian courts have invoked factum valet in a variety of cases, especially concerning marriage and inheritance.

Case References:
Ganduri Koteshwaramma v. Chakiri Yanadi (2011) 9 SCC 788
In this case, the Supreme Court addressed issues relating to family arrangements and inheritance under Hindu law. Although there were certain procedural inconsistencies in the execution of property distribution, the Court invoked factum valet to uphold the arrangements. The judgment emphasized that the doctrine is important to avoid disputes among family members and ensure the stability of family relations. Here, the Court validated the arrangement based on factum valet, acknowledging the intention and agreement of the parties involved.

Savitri Devi v. State of Rajasthan (1998) 1 SCC 194
In this case, the Supreme Court applied the doctrine to recognize the legitimacy of an adoption that did not strictly comply with the procedural requirements outlined in Hindu law. The Court emphasized that if the intention of adoption was clear and the adopted child had been raised as a member of the family, the adoption would be valid despite procedural deviations. This ruling reinforced that factum valet could be applied to protect the interests of adopted children and ensure they are not deprived of their rights due to procedural lapses.

K.V. Narayanaswami v. K.V. Ramakrishna (2003) 10 SCC 426
The case involved inheritance and succession rights under Hindu law. The Court addressed issues concerning wills and the distribution of family property, applying factum valet to uphold a property division agreement among family members, even though the arrangement did not follow every procedural norm. The Court recognized the agreement as valid, noting that invalidating it would disrupt familial harmony and stability.

Limitations and Criticism
Despite its benefits, the doctrine of factum valet is not without limitations. The courts have specified that it cannot be applied to validate actions that are outright illegal or against public policy. For instance, it cannot be used to validate bigamous marriages, as bigamy is explicitly prohibited under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The doctrine also does not cover fraudulent or malicious actions that disregard mandatory legal requirements.

Moreover, critics argue that the doctrine of factum valet could sometimes undermine legal certainty by allowing flexibility in procedural compliance. This may encourage some parties to overlook procedural requirements, relying on the expectation that the courts will validate their actions afterward. Thus, the doctrine requires cautious application to balance the competing interests of legal stability and procedural adherence.

Conclusion
The doctrine of factum valet serves as a crucial instrument in the Indian legal system, especially in family law, where its application can prevent the disruption of established relationships and ensure the continuity of social and familial stability. Through landmark judgments like Ganduri Koteshwaramma v. Chakiri Yanadi, Savitri Devi v. State of Rajasthan, and K.V. Narayanaswami v. K.V. Ramakrishna, the Indian judiciary has underscored the doctrine's importance in safeguarding completed actions that were undertaken in good faith, even when minor procedural lapses occurred.

While factum valet ensures the validity of certain acts post-completion, it is applied with limitations to maintain the integrity of the law. The principle ultimately reflects a balanced approach, recognizing the need for flexibility within legal procedures while upholding the rule of law and ensuring that actions align with public policy and societal values.

Written By: Prithwish Ganguli, Advocate
LLM (CU), MA in Sociology (SRU), MA in Criminology & Forensic Sc (NALSAR), Dip in Cyber Law (ASCL), Dip in Psychology (ALISON) Visiting Faculty, Heritage Law College