( 1 ) THE U. P. Government, the defendant, appeals. The dispute in this case relates to four plots of land situate in the city of Kanpur. They are mentioned in Schedule A to the written statement filed on behalf of the defendant. Markets are held on these plots. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for damages for a breach of an agreement to let out those plots to him. The allegations in the plaint were that in August 4, 1944 the. Executive Engineer, Kanpur division, (Lower Ganges Canal), who was in charge of the management of the aforesaid plots, invited offers for the grant of a lease of the aforesaid plots, that the plaintiffs offer, being the highest, was accepted by the Executive Engineer, Sri Shyam Lal, on behalf of the defendant, that it was settled between the plaintiff and the Executive Engineer that the plaintiff would be granted the lease of the aforesaid plots for a period of five years, that the plaintiff was asked to deposit rs. 6126/- as six months rent in advance, that the plaintiff accordingly deposited Rs. 6000/- on the 25th August 1944 and Rs. 126/- on the 6th September 1944 that on the 26th August 1944 the plaintiff and the Executive Engineer, signed certain documents, which, according to the plaintiff, were agreements to lease, and that the plaintiff was assured that he would be let in possession over the aforesaid plots as soon as the sitting tenants vacated them or, in any case, on the 1st april 1945 when the term of their leases was to expire. The Executive Engineer, however, did not deliver possession of the aforesaid plots in spite ot repeated requests of the plaintiff. On the 23rd February 1945 the plaintiff was informed by Sri B. D. Goyal the then Executive Engineer that the plaintiffs deposit money of Rs. 6126/- was being returned to him, because it was not possible to deliver possession of the aforesaid lands to him. After some intermediate correspondence the plaintiff served on the 19th/23rd June 1945 a notice under Section 80, C. P. C. on the defendant through the Collector, Kanpur. It was pointed out in the notice that, if the Government failed to honour the contract and deliver possession of the aforesaid plots to the plaintiff, the plaintiff would institute a suit in the appropriate civil court for the specific performance of the contract or for recovery of damages. The defendant failed to deliver possession of the aforesaid lands to the plaintiff, and hence the suit. The plaintiff claimed Rs. 15,000/- as damages for breach of contract.

( 2 ) IN the written statement filed on behalf of the defendant it is admitted that Sri Shyam Lal, executive Engineer, accepted the offer of the plaintiff and agreed to give him a lease of the aforesaid plots for a period of 5 years. It was, however, alleged that the plaintiff had executed 4 leases in respect of the aforesaid plots on 26-8-1944, but the plaintiff did not get them registered as required by law. The leases were accordingly void and unenforceable against the defendant. It was further alleged that the leases wore void for mutual mistake of fact. It was also stated that the Executive Engineer had no authority to grant the leases. No sanction was obtained from proper authority by the Executive Engineer and the leases were not executed in accordance with legal procedure. Lastly, it was alleged that the plaintiff was not entitled to any damages and, at any rate, the damages claimed were very excessive.

( 3 ) THE evidence consists of some documents and the oral statements of the plaintiff and one deep Chand on behalf of the defendant. We shall deal with the evidence at the appropriate state hereafter.

( 4 ) THE trial court repelled all the pleas of the defendant and held that it was liable to pay a sum of rs. 13,200/- as damages to the plaintiff for the non-performance of the agreement to lease the aforesaid plots. It has further directed that if during the period of 5 years, during which time the leases of the plaintiff would h