Literal Meaning
A person’s acts and deeds.
Explanation & Origin
Origin – The word Factum originates from the Latin term which translates to act or deed. The written summary of a litigant’s position to be taken and expounded upon in a judicial proceeding, including a concise summary of relevant facts and law and brief arguments with reference to authorities where applicable.
Explanation- The word factum is used in law to refer to a litigant’s written submissions, a core booklet of clear, simple and concise argument. It is most often used in the content of an appeal but may also be used to refer to written submissions given to a lower court, of first instance.The usual form of a factum varies from jurisdiction to jurisdictions and often conforms to the individual preferences to the drafting.
Illustration
Statement of relevant law and argument (why your client is right or why the lower court was wrong).
Case Reference
In the case of Pratibha Rani vs Suraj Kumar & Anr[1] the appellant transferred all her properties to her husband for carrying on a partnership business in accordance with the provisions of the Partnership Act. Thus, in our opinion, it cannot be said that a bare act of keeping stridhan property in the custody of the husband constitutes a partnership and, therefore, a criminal case under s. 406 IPC is not maintainable. It is not necessary for us to multiply cases on this point on which there does not appear to be any controversy. We have already pointed out that the stridhan of a woman is her absolute property and the husband has no interest in the same and the entrustment to him is just like something which he wife keeps in a Bank and can withdraw any amount whenever she likes without any hitch or hindrance and the husband cannot use the stridhan for his personal purposes unless he obtains the tacit consent of his wife. When the essential conditions of a partnership do not exist the mere act or factum of entrustment of stridhan would not constitute any co-ownership or legal partnership as defined under s.4 of the Partnership Act.
In the case of Lachman Utamchand Kiriplani vs Meena Alias Mota[2] According to the evidence of both these witnesses, the respondent, when re- quested to come back to Bombay, stated that she was de- termined never again to come back to her husband’s house. The respondent denied the entire story and stated that neither the appellant nor Dr. Lulla ever came to Poona during her stay there, nor of course ever talked to her. The learned trial Judge who had the opportunity of seeing Dr. Lulla in the box entertained a very favorable opinion of his respectability and credibility and accepted in toto his evidence that the respondent intimated to him her fixed determination not to come back to the appellant. In the background of the previous history of the relationship between the parties and the manner in which the respondent left, the husband’s home on February 26, 1954, as found by the trial Judge, he recorded a finding that the factum of desertion which was not in dispute was accompanied by “‘animus deserendi’ which had been satisfactorily established by the declaration she made to the appellant and his friend.
In the case of Nagayasami Naidu And Ors. vs Kochadai Naidu And Ors.[3] Bench of this court held that an entry in the death register extract is not admissible to prove the age on the date of death, even though that factum was also recorded. The learned Judge has discussed all the relevant cases in which, even though there was no proof relating to the factum of adoption, either with regard to the giving and taking or in regard to the observances of the necessary ceremonies, the adoption was upheld on the ground that the party who had admitted the adoption had not satisfactorily explained as to why such admission were made. It is sufficient to set out the following headnote: At this stage, it may be mentioned that In this the Privy Council upheld the factum of adoption, because the party who admitted the adoption offered explanation with regard to his admissions which were found to be either absurd or unproved and the admissions were therefore given full effect. In the case decided by Kailasam J, the lower appellate court held that the factum of adoption had not been satisfactorily proved, despite the admissions of the party concerned in several documents. But Kailasam J. reversed that judgment, taking the view, that the recitals which constituted powerful admissions, threw the burden upon the other side and as the burden had not been discharged by satisfactory explanation, as to why such admissions were made, there was no need for further proof of the factum of adoption and the party should be held bound by what he had already admitted.
Edited by Vigneshwar Ramasubramania
Approved & Published – Sakshi Raje
Reference
[1] 1985 AIR 628
[2] 964 AIR 40
[3] AIR 1969 Mad 329
