3.1 General Although this test was already applied in the late nineteenth century, 4 one finds its classic formulation in the case of Ex parte Geldenhuys: 25 One has to look not so much to the right, but to the correlative obligation. If that obligation is a burden upon the land, a subtraction from the dominium, the correspond ing right is real and registrable; if it is not such an obligation, but merely an obligation binding on some person or other, the corresponding right is a personal right, or right in personam,and it cannot as a rule be registered It is generally accepted that this is also the test which the legislature uses in section 63 (1)of the Deeds Registries Act. 26 This section, without its proviso, 27 reads as follows No deed, or cond ition in a deed, purporting to create or embodying any personal right of immovable proper/y, shall be capable of registration . 2e sht of ownership in respect and no cond ition which does not restrict the exercise of anmy ri This test presupposes that a person's ownership of land is diminished or curtailed by the granting to another of a real right with regard to the land Put differently a real right which another person holds with regard to one's own land brings about a subtraction from or diminution of the normal powers of use, enjoyment, alienation or disposal inherent in one's ownership Only right which has this effect on a persons ownership of land is by nature real and thus registrable The practical application of this test will now be illustrated on the basis of three reported cases The first two cases deal with the question whether the right to demand payment of a sum of money from a landowner can be classified as a real right which can be registered against the title deed of the land. In the third case the question is whether the right to restrict the use and exploitation of land and the right to repurchase land which has been sold, are real and therefore gistrable 3.2 Lorentz v Melle and Others 29 Lorentz and Van Boeschoten acquired a farm in co-ownership and agreed to a division of part of the property. In terms of the agreement, each one of them would receive transfer of a specific e, for example, Consistory of Steytlerville v Bosman 1893 (10)SC 67 251926OPD155at164 26Act47of1937 27As to the proviso, see n 18 above 291978(3)SA1044(T)3.1 General Although this test was already applied in the late nineteenth century,24 one finds its classic formulation in the case of Ex parte Geldenhuys: 25 One has to look not so much to the right, but to the correlative obligation. If that obligation is a burden upon the land, a subtraction from the dominium, the corresponding right is real and registrable; if it is not such an obligation, but merely an obligation binding on some person or other, the corresponding right is a personal right, or right in personam, and it cannot as a rule be registered. It is generally accepted that this is also the test which the legislature uses in section 63(1) of the Deeds Registries Act.26 This section, without its proviso,27 reads as follows: No deed, or condition in a deed, purporting to create or embodying any personal right, and no condition which does not restrict the exercise of any right of ownership in respect of immovable property, shall be capable of registration . . . 28 This test presupposes that a person’s ownership of land is diminished or curtailed by the granting to another of a real right with regard to the land. Put differently: a real right which another person holds with regard to one’s own land brings about a subtraction from or diminution of the normal powers of use, enjoyment, alienation or disposal inherent in one’s ownership. Only a right which has this effect on a person’s ownership of land is by nature real and thus registrable. The practical application of this test will now be illustrated on the basis of three reported cases. The first two cases deal with the question whether the right to demand payment of a sum of money from a landowner can be classified as a real right which can be registered against the title deed of the land. In the third case the question is whether the right to restrict the use and exploitation of land and the right to repurchase land which has been sold, are real and therefore registrable. 3.2 Lorentz v Melle and Others29 Lorentz and Van Boeschoten acquired a farm in co-ownership and agreed to a division of part of the property. In terms of the agreement, each one of them would receive transfer of a specific 24See, for example, Consistory of Steytlerville v Bosman 1893 (10) SC 67. 251926 OPD 155 at 164. 26Act 47 of 1937. 27As to the proviso, see n. 18 above. 28My emphasis. 291978 (3) SA 1044 (T)