As per the case facts, the dispute involved recovery of earnest money related to sale agreements for a property. The lower courts had affirmed a decree for the respondent to ... recover this money with interest, based on the premise that the contract became impossible to perform due to acquisition proceedings. The appeal was made to the Supreme Court to address the issue of breach of contractual terms. The question arose whether the contract was rendered impossible to perform or if it automatically terminated as per its terms. Finally, the Supreme Court concluded that the contract automatically terminated as per its stipulated terms, rather than being impossible to perform. The lower courts' decree, hinged on the idea of unjust enrichment due to impossibility, was based on a logical fallacy. The sale agreements should have been deemed terminated.