We often come across sections that cannot be analyzed without looking into the history and purpose of the birth of the section. Section 53-A is one of those sections where the crux of the issue cannot be understood until there is an investigation into the process of its formation. The essay delves deep into the explanation of what Section 53-A entails and the intention of its addition. The section in question was a direct borrow from the colonial masters themselves and would not have existed if it were not for the laws of equity. Section 53-A states that if a person has taken possession of an immovable property on the basis of a contract or agreement of sale and has either performed or is willing to perform his part of the contract then, he would not be ejected from the property on the ground that the sale was unregistered and that a legal title has not been transferred to him. While the section was directly borrowed, it left huge gaps for misinterpretation. Thus, the process of crystallization and concretization of the section would be incomplete without judicial interpretation of the same. Post these interpretations and certain amendments, there were still many speculations about the position of law on certain questions, and these have been effectively tackled in the essay. Thereafter, the essay goes on to discuss the nature of rights provided by the section for the transferee. In India, the equity of par-performance is passive equity: it can be used only as a shield, not as a sword. The essay then explores the reason for this. The concluding remark of the research paper establishes the fact that regardless of all the questions raised, the ultimate goal must be to protect the rights of the vulnerable, in this case being the transferee.