PVL3701 – Assignment 1 | Question And 100% Answer
Question 1: Real vs. Personal Rights (Ownership & Limited Real Rights)
Scenario:
Thabo owns a farm in the Free State. He enters into a written agreement with Maria, granting her the
right to use a specific portion of the farm for grazing her cattle for a period of 10 years. The agreement is
signed by both parties but is not registered against the title deeds of the farm. Two years later, Thabo
sells the farm to Peter. Peter is unaware of the agreement between Thabo and Maria. Maria continues
to graze her cattle on the portion of the farm. Peter demands that Maria remove her cattle, claiming she
has no right to be on his property. Maria refuses, arguing that her agreement with Thabo is binding on
Peter.
Which of the following statements is CORRECT?
A. Maria has a personal right against Thabo that has become a limited real right binding on Peter
because the agreement was in writing and signed by both parties.
B. Maria has a limited real right (usufruct) that is enforceable against Peter because the agreement
created a praedial servitude that runs with the land.
C. Maria has a personal right only, enforceable only against Thabo, and Peter is entitled to eject her
from the property because personal rights do not bind third parties.
D. Maria has a real right that is enforceable against Peter because the doctrine of nemo plus iuris
protects her prior agreement with Thabo against subsequent purchasers.
Correct Answer: C
Detailed Explanation:
Why C is correct:
Maria's right is purely personal (ius in personam), not real (ius in rem). The agreement created a
contractual obligation between Thabo and Maria—specifically, it appears to be a personal servitude
(likely a usus or right of use) or simply a contractual license. However, for a limited real right to be
created and to bind successors in title, it must comply with the personalist theory requirements: it must
be registered against the title deeds of the burdened property in terms of section 3(1)(r) of the Deeds
Registries Act 47 of 1937.
Since the agreement was not registered, it remains a mere personal right enforceable only against
Thabo, the original contracting party. This principle was confirmed in Ex Parte Geldenhuys 1926 OPD
155, where the court held that an unregistered personal servitude does not constitute a limited real
right and does not bind a subsequent owner. Personal rights create obligations between specific parties
and do not have erga omnes effect—they do not bind the world. Therefore, Peter, as the new owner, is
not bound by the unregistered agreement and is entitled to eject Maria.
, Furthermore, the nemo plus iuris rule ("no one can transfer more rights than they possess") operates
here: Thabo could not have transferred to Maria a right stronger than his own, and certainly could not
burden Peter's ownership with an unregistered right.
Why A is incorrect:
This option reflects a common student error—confusing the requirements for a valid contract with the
requirements for a real right. While the agreement may be valid and enforceable as a contract between
Thabo and Maria (meeting writing requirements under the Statute of Frauds), contractual validity does
not transform a personal right into a real right. The iusta causa and traditio requirements for real rights
are distinct from contractual requirements. Without registration, no limited real right comes into
existence, regardless of how formal the agreement was.
Why B is incorrect:
This option contains multiple legal errors. First, the agreement created a personal servitude (burdening
the landowner to allow grazing), not a praedial servitude (which would burden the land itself for the
benefit of another property). A praedial servitude requires a dominant and servient tenement, which is
absent here—Maria is a person, not an owner of adjacent land. Second, even if it were a servitude,
registration is mandatory for both praedial and personal servitudes to constitute real rights. The
description "usufruct" is also inaccurate: usufruct encompasses comprehensive use and enjoyment of
property including fruits, whereas grazing rights are more limited.
**Why D is incorrect
Output stopped
the explainer should ne only for the correct answer
Edit
Copy
Share
I'll generate two high-quality MCQs for PVL3701 (South African Property Law) focusing on the distinction
between real and personal rights, ownership, and the rei vindicatio. These will be crafted based on
established legal principles without needing external search, as this falls within my training knowledge
of South African law.
Question 1: Real vs. Personal Rights & The Nemo Plus Iuris Rule
Scenario:
Question 1: Real vs. Personal Rights (Ownership & Limited Real Rights)
Scenario:
Thabo owns a farm in the Free State. He enters into a written agreement with Maria, granting her the
right to use a specific portion of the farm for grazing her cattle for a period of 10 years. The agreement is
signed by both parties but is not registered against the title deeds of the farm. Two years later, Thabo
sells the farm to Peter. Peter is unaware of the agreement between Thabo and Maria. Maria continues
to graze her cattle on the portion of the farm. Peter demands that Maria remove her cattle, claiming she
has no right to be on his property. Maria refuses, arguing that her agreement with Thabo is binding on
Peter.
Which of the following statements is CORRECT?
A. Maria has a personal right against Thabo that has become a limited real right binding on Peter
because the agreement was in writing and signed by both parties.
B. Maria has a limited real right (usufruct) that is enforceable against Peter because the agreement
created a praedial servitude that runs with the land.
C. Maria has a personal right only, enforceable only against Thabo, and Peter is entitled to eject her
from the property because personal rights do not bind third parties.
D. Maria has a real right that is enforceable against Peter because the doctrine of nemo plus iuris
protects her prior agreement with Thabo against subsequent purchasers.
Correct Answer: C
Detailed Explanation:
Why C is correct:
Maria's right is purely personal (ius in personam), not real (ius in rem). The agreement created a
contractual obligation between Thabo and Maria—specifically, it appears to be a personal servitude
(likely a usus or right of use) or simply a contractual license. However, for a limited real right to be
created and to bind successors in title, it must comply with the personalist theory requirements: it must
be registered against the title deeds of the burdened property in terms of section 3(1)(r) of the Deeds
Registries Act 47 of 1937.
Since the agreement was not registered, it remains a mere personal right enforceable only against
Thabo, the original contracting party. This principle was confirmed in Ex Parte Geldenhuys 1926 OPD
155, where the court held that an unregistered personal servitude does not constitute a limited real
right and does not bind a subsequent owner. Personal rights create obligations between specific parties
and do not have erga omnes effect—they do not bind the world. Therefore, Peter, as the new owner, is
not bound by the unregistered agreement and is entitled to eject Maria.
, Furthermore, the nemo plus iuris rule ("no one can transfer more rights than they possess") operates
here: Thabo could not have transferred to Maria a right stronger than his own, and certainly could not
burden Peter's ownership with an unregistered right.
Why A is incorrect:
This option reflects a common student error—confusing the requirements for a valid contract with the
requirements for a real right. While the agreement may be valid and enforceable as a contract between
Thabo and Maria (meeting writing requirements under the Statute of Frauds), contractual validity does
not transform a personal right into a real right. The iusta causa and traditio requirements for real rights
are distinct from contractual requirements. Without registration, no limited real right comes into
existence, regardless of how formal the agreement was.
Why B is incorrect:
This option contains multiple legal errors. First, the agreement created a personal servitude (burdening
the landowner to allow grazing), not a praedial servitude (which would burden the land itself for the
benefit of another property). A praedial servitude requires a dominant and servient tenement, which is
absent here—Maria is a person, not an owner of adjacent land. Second, even if it were a servitude,
registration is mandatory for both praedial and personal servitudes to constitute real rights. The
description "usufruct" is also inaccurate: usufruct encompasses comprehensive use and enjoyment of
property including fruits, whereas grazing rights are more limited.
**Why D is incorrect
Output stopped
the explainer should ne only for the correct answer
Edit
Copy
Share
I'll generate two high-quality MCQs for PVL3701 (South African Property Law) focusing on the distinction
between real and personal rights, ownership, and the rei vindicatio. These will be crafted based on
established legal principles without needing external search, as this falls within my training knowledge
of South African law.
Question 1: Real vs. Personal Rights & The Nemo Plus Iuris Rule
Scenario:
