1. In this case the District Munsif in his decree in O.S. No. 1116 of 1907 granted Rs. 100 to the defendant against the plaintiff as compensation for improper attachment of the defendant's moveable property before judgment. The plaintiff in his appeal against the decree objected to any compensation being awarded. The lower appellate court held that no appeal lay against the award of compensation, relying on the decision in Narasinga Bhakshi v. Govinda Bhakshi I.L.R. (1902) M. 62, and the learned judge, from whose judgment this appeal is preferred, affirmed that view. In our opinion the decision in Narasinga Bhakshi v. Govinda Bhakshi I.L.R. (1902) M. 62 is distinguishable from this case. There the appeal was one objecting to the amount awarded as compensation by the party to whom it was awarded, and the contention was that a larger amount should have been awarded. The appeal, therefore, was not against an award of compensation contained in the decree. In the present case, on the other hand, the appeal was against a portion of the decree itself, viz., the portion of it which gave compensation to the defendant. In our opinion, where a decree gives compensation an appeal lies against such award, though no appeal might lie where no award is made. In cases of injunction under Section 497 of the C.P.C., no doubt a larger right of appeal was given, but this does not affect the existence of a right of appeal where there is an award of compensation in the decree. The Allahabad High Court, no doubt, applied Narasinga Bhakshi v. Govinda Bhakshi I.L.R. (1902) M. 62 to a case similar to the present see Loka Nath v. Amir Singh I.L.R. (1908) A. 81 but we are, with all respect, unable to agree with that decision. We set aside the order of Sankaran Nair J. and of the lower appellate court and remand the appeal for fresh disposal according to law. The costs will abide the result.