Klipfontein Oost (Klipfontein A No. 174 Ptn 1)

1/174 on the cadastre · on record 1938–1939 · show on the map

The farm's own history, the grant, the original survey, sits on that page.

Farm number: No. 174
Portion: 1
Also recorded as: Klipfontein OostDIAGRAM, the sheet reads "Portion 1 (known as KLIPFONTEIN OOST)"KlipfonteinSRC-436, 2023 valuation roll, which prints the parent farm name against this portion
On the cadastre: 1/174, portionregistered as KLIPFONTEIN
District: Prince Albert
Extent, as the diagram states it: 2620.9154 morgen
Modern surveyed area: 2252.7 ha

The historic extent and the modern surveyed area are two separate measurements and are not presented here as confirming each other. The first is what a surveyor wrote on a diagram, usually in morgen. The second is what the modern cadastre draws.

Why this farm is here

Bernardus Lambertus Steyl held it, and no kinship to the Oosthuizen, Marincowitz or Van der Merwe lines is recorded, this ground entered through the land, not the family. 24 km from Klaarstroom.

parcel Cut out of Klipfontein A No. 174
border Shares a boundary with Oorlogs Kloof No. 172 (Roode Els Bosch and Oorlogs Kloof) Oorlogs Kloof No. 172 (Roode Els Bosch and Oorlogs Kloof)
border Shares a boundary with Klipfontein A No. 174 Remainder Klipfontein A No. 174 Remainder
document A document in the collection describes this ground DOC-0114

What the record holds, in order

August 1938 boundary change subdivision: from Klipfontein A No. 174
August 1938 document SG diagram 285/1939
9314
29 August 1939 ownership Bernardus Lambertus Steyl
freehold · transfer · confidence high

Bordered by, as the diagram names them

N Zwartdoorns
NE Remainder of Lot No 1
E Westbourne
W Klipfontein A Remainder
S Part of portion of Roode Els Bosch and Oorlogs Kloof

Also bordered by, as the modern cadastre draws it

Ground that touches this farm on the Surveyor-General's current polygons and that none of the diagrams held here names. Derived from the geometry, not read off a document.

Documents

Scan of Surveyor-General diagram, 285/1939, August 1938

Surveyor-General diagram, 285/1939, August 1938
10513531.jpg

Cadastre

Surveyor-General diagram index for this parcel

Surveyor-General diagram index for the whole farm — where the original survey of this ground sits.

Research notes

[31 Jul 2026 inbox] Figure abcde, 2620.9154 morgen, called PORTION 1 (known as KLIPFONTEIN OOST), portion of the farm Klipfontein A, Field Cornetcy of Traka. Subdivisional diagram under Sect. 24(b), Act No. 9 of 1927; surveyed August 1938, diagram 285/1939 approved 21 Apr 1939; the original diagram is 284/1939 (DOC-0113). Annexed to Partition Transfer deed 9314 of 29 Aug 1939 in favour of Bernardus Lambertus SteylH. [DIAGRAM] DOC-0114. Neighbours drawn: Zwartdoorns north, Remainder of Lot No 1 north-east, Westbourne east, the Remainder west, and part of portion of Roode Els Bosch and Oorlogs Kloof south.

[13 Aug 2026] Renamed to the one form this model uses for every portion - the portion's own name, then the parent farm, its number and the portion in brackets - so that a name is legible in a list, a search result and a map popup without the reader having to know which farm number is which. It read "Klipfontein Oost (Klipfontein A Ptn 1)" before. Nothing about the ground changed.

The research behind this page, kept separate from it: dated working notes, open questions, and what is not yet settled.

What the record is missing

The record stops in 1939 and never resumes third order · B2 trail-ends
Klipfontein Oost (Klipfontein A No. 174 Ptn 1) was worked as far as 1939-08-29, with Bernardus Lambertus SteylH the last owner on record. 87 years follow with nothing. Who held it after that, and is it still one farm?

What would settle it The current title deed traced backwards, each transfer names the one before it, or the Surveyor-General's subdivision diagrams, which are what usually explain a farm going quiet.
“Remainder of Lot No 1” is named as a neighbour 2 times and we hold no parcel for it third order · B3 unheld-farm
2 separate surveys in this model put Remainder of Lot No 1 on the boundary of ground we do hold (PAR-000083, PAR-000084). It has no parcel of its own here, so nothing is known about who held it or when, while it borders farms at the centre of the project.

What would settle it The Surveyor-General's farm index for the registration division will give it a farm number and a diagram; the cadastre pull in `data/fetch_cadastre.py` then places it on the map.
“Westbourne” is named as a neighbour 2 times and we hold no parcel for it third order · B3 unheld-farm
2 separate surveys in this model put Westbourne on the boundary of ground we do hold (PAR-000083, PAR-000084). It has no parcel of its own here, so nothing is known about who held it or when, while it borders farms at the centre of the project.

What would settle it The Surveyor-General's farm index for the registration division will give it a farm number and a diagram; the cadastre pull in `data/fetch_cadastre.py` then places it on the map.
“Zwartdoorns” is named as a neighbour 2 times and we hold no parcel for it third order · B3 unheld-farm
2 separate surveys in this model put Zwartdoorns on the boundary of ground we do hold (PAR-000083, PAR-000084). It has no parcel of its own here, so nothing is known about who held it or when, while it borders farms at the centre of the project.

What would settle it The Surveyor-General's farm index for the registration division will give it a farm number and a diagram; the cadastre pull in `data/fetch_cadastre.py` then places it on the map.

Found by breaks.py reading the model against itself, not written by hand, each one is a shape of missing record, not a fault in the data. The whole set is on the questions page.