( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the plaintiff whose suit for specific performance of a contract for sale was dismissed by the District Judge East Nimar, Khandwa.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff is a private limited company registered under the Indian companies Act. The defendant is the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board constituted under the Indian Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. The facts leading to the suit giving rise to this appeal are that M/s. Jasrup Baijnath Bahety and Sons Private Limited owned a power house, which included lands and buildings, in Khandwa town. They had acquired the. said power house from M/s. Abdul Hussain Haji Jiwaji and Co. who originally held the licence for supply of electricity. M/s. Jasrup Baijnath Bahety and Sons Private Ltd. surrendered their licence and their licence was revoked with their consent in 1954. After the revocation of the licence, the entire Khandwa power house with all its lands and buildings was purchased by the Madhya Pradush electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board ). The Board paid the price which was settled by agreement. One G. D. Bagri, who was an employee of M/s. Jasrup Baijnath Bahety and Sons Pvt. Ltd. , applied to the Board for purchase of some land and buildings belonging to the old Khandwa power house on the ground that this property was of no use to the Board as it had developed its sub-station for supply of electricity to Khandwa town on Pandhana Road. Later on a company bearing the name 'nimar Industrial Corporation Private Ltd. ' was floated by Shri bagri of which at the relevant time he was the Managing Director. The sale of the land and the buildings belonging to the old power house was then negotiated for and on behalf of this company.

( 3 ) THE suit giving rise to this appeal was instituted by the Nimar Industrial corporation Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the company) against the Madhya pradesh Electricity Board, Jabalpur, on the allegations that the parties entered into a contract for sale of the land and buildings described in the plaint map by letters a, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I (portion of the premises of the old Khandwa power house)for a sum of Rupees 14,971/ -. It was further alleged that the payment of the entire consideration was made by the company to the Board and that possession was delivered to the company by the Board. It was also stated that only a sale-deed could not be executed. It was prayed that a decree for specific performance of the contract ordering the defendant Board to execute a sale-deed be passed in favour of the company. The defendant Board contested the suit on various grounds. It denied that there was any concluded contract for the sale of the suit property. It also pleaded that the Board had no authority to sell its property and the contract, if any, was ultra vires. It was further pleaded that the price of Rs. 14,971/-, pleaded by the plaintiff was a very low price and the Board, even if it had authority to sell its property, could sell only at the market price and not at a concessional price for the benefit of the plaintiff. It was also pleaded by the Board that under the terms of the lease of the land it could not be sold without the consent of the State Government, and no such consent was obtained. The trial court substantially accepted all the pleas raised by the Board, except the plea that the price of Rs. 14,971/- was not a fair price for the suit property. This suit was dismissed by the trial Court and it is against this decree that the present appeal has been filed by the plaintiff-company.

( 4 ) THE first question that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether there was a concluded contract for sale of the suit property. The correspondence for purchase of the suit property started in January, 1956 and it is not necessary to mention the earlier letters. Suffice it to say that in the letters sent on behalf of the plaintiff-company it was stressed that the company wanted the property for industrial p