Judgment :- 1. The matter arises in execution. The appellant herein as petitioner filed E.A.No. 201 of 1984 in E.P.No.125 of 1982 in S.F.C.O.P. No. 498 of 1980 under Order XXI R.89 C.P.C. to set aside the sale on deposit. The appellant petitioner before the lower court claims to have obtained the possession of the property, item No. 11 of Schedule 'B' of the sale proclamation, l acre 29.125 cents in Sy. No.13/2C/2/2 of Vaduthala Mattathibhagom Village in Shertallai Taluk. The first respondent is the decree bolder in S.F.C.O.P. No. 498 of 1980. Respondents 2 to 6 are the judgment debtors. The 7th respondent is the court auction purchaser of the property in which the appellant is interested. All the 4 items of properties, sold by court on 3-12-1984, are equally liable for the decree debt. Two items of properties were purchased by the decree holder for a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/-. The 7th respondent purchased another item of property for a sum of Rs. 1.00.100/-. The instant item was purchased by the 7th respondent for Rs. 40,100/-. The appellant petitioner in the lower court deposited a sum of Rs. 40,100/- for item No. 11 in the B Schedule plus 5 per cent commission due to the auction purchaser, coming to Rs. 2,005/-. thus totalling to Rs. 42,105/-. The total amount due as per the decree and the sale proclamation is Rs. 3,97,850/-. out of which the decree holder purchased two items of properties for Rs. 2,25,000/-, the 7th respondent purchased one other item for Rs.1,00,100/- and he himself purchased the instant item in which the appellant is interested for Rs. 40,100/-. The total amount thus realised by sale of all the four items was Rs. 3,65,200/-, leaving a sum of Rs. 32,650/- to be realised yet. Since the date of decree or the proclamation, no amount was paid towards the decree debt. The court below held that the deposit of Rs. 42,105/- by the appellant, on the facts, has failed to comply with the provisions of Order XXI R.89 C. P. C. The application filed by the appellant was dismissed by order dated 9-7-1985. The petitioner in the court below has come up in appeal. 2. We heard counsel for the appellant, Mr. S. V. S. Ayyar, counsel for the 1st respondent-Corporation, Mr. The petitioner in the court below has come up in appeal. 2. We heard counsel for the appellant, Mr. S. V. S. Ayyar, counsel for the 1st respondent-Corporation, Mr. Mathew P. Mathew and counsel for the auction purchaser (7th respondent) M/s. K. R. Kurup and M. Rajagopalan. It is conceded that a balance of Rs. 32 650/- is still due to the decree holder out of the amount specified in the proclamation of sale. It is common ground that all the 4 items of properties were proclaimed and sold separately. The appellant's counsel contended that he need not deposit more than the purchase price of Rs.40,100/-plus 5 percent commission, totalling to Rs. 42,105/- which has admittedly been done. The court below was in error in holding that the appellant should deposit a further sum of Rs. 32,650/- which still remains as the Balance due to the decree holder in order to satisfy the requirements of Order XXI R.89 C. P. C. According to the appellant's counsel, the provisions of Order XXI R.89 C.P.C. as it obtained in Kerala before the amendment by Act 104 of 1976, should apply. According to him, the said provision is consistent with the provisions of the C.P.C. as amended by Act 104 of 1976. 3. We shall extract the provisions of Order XXI R.89 C.P C., along with the provisions as it obtained in Kerala before the C.P C. Amendment Act 104 of 1976: "89. According to him, the said provision is consistent with the provisions of the C.P.C. as amended by Act 104 of 1976. 3. We shall extract the provisions of Order XXI R.89 C.P C., along with the provisions as it obtained in Kerala before the C.P C. Amendment Act 104 of 1976: "89. Application to set aside sale on deposit (1) Where immovable property has been sold in execution of a decree, the judgment-debtor, or any person deriving title from the judgment-debtor or any person holding an interest in the property may apply to have the sale set aside on his depositing is Court (a) for payment to the purchaser, a sum equal to five per cent of the purchase-money, and (b) for payment to the decree-holder, the amount specified in the proclamation of sale as that for the recovery of which the sale was ordered, less any amount which may, since the date of the proclamation of sale, have been received by the decree-holder: Provided that when several items of properties are sold separately the sale of one or more of such items may be set aside on depositing in Court the amount of the purchase-money for items the sale of which is sought to be set aside and a sum equal to five per cent of that amount and the balance, if any, of the amount specified in the proclamation of sale as that for the recovery of which the sale was ordered still remaining unrealised. Provided further that where the immoveable property sold is liable to discharge a portion of the decree-debt, the payment under clause (b) of this sub-rule need not exceed such amount as under the decree the owner of the property sold is liable to pay." We shall extract Order XXI R.89 C.P.C. as amended by C.P.C. Amendment Act 104 of 1976: "Application to set aside sale on deposit (1) Where immoveable property has been sold in execution of a decree, any person claiming an interest in the property sold at the time of the sale or at the time of making the application, or acting for or in the interest of such person, may apply to have the sale set aside on his depositing in Court, (a) for payment to the purchaser, a sum equal to five per cent of the purchase money and (b) for payment to the decree-holder, the amount specified in the proclamation of sale that for the recovery of which the sale was ordered, less any amount which may, since the date of such proclamation of sale have been received by the decree-holder. (2) Where a person applies under R.90 to set aside the sale of his immoveable property, he shall not, unless he withdraws his application, be entitled to make or prosecute an application under this rule. (3) Nothing in this rule shall relieve the judgment-debtor from any liability be may be under in respect of costs and interest not covered by the proclamation of sale." 4. A mere look of the provisions of Order XXI R.89, as it obtained before C.P.C. Amendment Act 104 of 1976 and after, will show that the provisions of Order XXI R.89 as it obtained in Kerala are not consistent with the provisions of C.P.C. as amended by Amendment Act 104 of 1976. It is worthwhile to note that the two provisos which occurred before the amendment in 1976, are totally absent after the amendment. The two provisos provided for two different contingencies. One of them is a provision applicable to a case where several items of properties are sold separately, the sale of one or more of such item is sought to be set aside on depositing the amount of the purchase money for that item or items. There is no such provision in the C.P.C. after the amendment. One of them is a provision applicable to a case where several items of properties are sold separately, the sale of one or more of such item is sought to be set aside on depositing the amount of the purchase money for that item or items. There is no such provision in the C.P.C. after the amendment. After the amendment by Act 104 of 1976, it cannot be said that the earlier provision in O. XXI R.89 C.P.C. along with the proviso is consistent with the amended provision. In our view, the provisions of O. XXI R.89 C.P.C. as amended by Act 104 of 1976 alone will apply to the instant case. It does not contemplate apiece-meal setting aside of the sale even in a case where the properties are proclaimed and sold separately. Indeed, counsel for the appellant in the court below submitted that the Kerala Rule as it obtained before the amendment by Act 104 of 1976 can have no application after 1-2-1977. This is so. On this short ground, we repel the contention that the provisions of O. XXI R.89 C.P.C. along with Kerala Rule as it obtained before the amendment by Act 104 of 1976 will apply to the instant case. 5. The only further question is whether the appellant has complied with the provisions of O. XXI R.89 C.P.C. The properties proclaimed and sold in execution of the decree obtained by the first respondent-Corporation were all equally liable for the discharge of the decree-debt. A sum of Rs. 32,650/-still remains the balance due to the decree-holder, out of the amount specified in the proclamation of sale. That has not been deposited. The appellant was not prepared to do it even in the court below. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the appellant has not complied with the provisions of O. XXI R.89(1)(b) of the C.P.C. He has not deposited in court for payment to the decree-holder, the amount specified in the proclamation of sale that for the recovery of which the sale was ordered, less any amount received by the decree-holder; since the date of such proclamation of sale, that a sum of Rs. 32,650/- still remains as balance due to the decree-holder, out of the amount specified in the proclamation of sale, as the amount for the recovery of which the properties were proclaimed for sale, was not disputed. 32,650/- still remains as balance due to the decree-holder, out of the amount specified in the proclamation of sale, as the amount for the recovery of which the properties were proclaimed for sale, was not disputed. If that be so, we hold that the appellant has not complied with the provisions of Order XXI R.89(1)(b) C.P.C. We concur with the reasoning and conclusion of the court below that the application filed by the appellant was rightly rejected, 6. There is no force in this appeal. It is without merit. It is dismissed with costs. Dismissed.