JUDGMENT Kaul, J. - This is a defendants' appeal in a suit for a declaration that the plaintiff- respondent was entitled to retain possession of plots Nos. 844 and 845 in village Pauli in district Sultanpur and that the defendants-appellants had no right of interest therein. The institution of this suit was necessitated as the present appellant, Jagdeo Singh had shortly before the suit, which has given rise to this appeal, was brought, obtained a decree u/s 9 of the Specific Relief Act against the respondent in respect of these two plots of land. The case set up by Mahraj Singh in the Court below was that plot No. 845 had been in his and his ancestors' khudkasht for a very long time and that he was in possession of plot No. 844 under a mortgage from the husband of Mst. Ram Raji created on the 7th June, 1907. The defence of Jagdeo Singh was that plot No. 844 belonged to Mst. Rao Raji and plot No. 845 was owned jointly by him and Mst. Earn Raji; that on the 17th of February, 1925, Mst. Ram Raji had mortgaged whatever rights she bad in either of these plots to him and he bad since been in possession. The trial Court dismissed the suit. On appeal the learned Civil Judge, Sultanpur on a consideration of the documents on record came to the conclusion that the plaintiff-respondent in this Court had been in possession of plot No. 845 for over 30 years and that his possession over plot No. 844 as mortgagee from Dukhchhor Singh husband of Mst. Ram Raji under a mortgage deed of 1907 was also established. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the declaration sought for was granted. Dissatisfied with the decision, Jagdeo Singh has come up in appeal. It may be mentioned that Jagdeo Singh died since this appeal was filed and is now represented by Sheo Kumar and others who are his legal representatives. 2. It will be seen from what has been stated above that there is a definite finding by the lower appellate Court as regards the respondent's possession over these plots for a considerable period. This pending of fact cannot be challenged in second appeal. 2. It will be seen from what has been stated above that there is a definite finding by the lower appellate Court as regards the respondent's possession over these plots for a considerable period. This pending of fact cannot be challenged in second appeal. I was asked to set aside this finding because it was urged that the lower Court had not considered some important documents and also did not refer to the oral evidence, re- corded by the trial Court. It is true that the judgment of the learned Civil Judge is rather sketchy I am satisfied, however, that he took into consideration all the relevant material and his finding cannot be said to be based on no evidence. It is not always possible or necessary to refer in the judgment to every document on the record or to the evidence of every witness who was examined at the trial. If from a perusal of the judgment of the lower appellate Court this Court is satisfied that all the relevant material was considered, though specific reference in detail is not made to every piece of evidence on the record, it will not be right to interfere with the finding of the lower appellate Court on a question of fact. In the present case there is nothing to justify the conclusion that all the relevant material was not considered. It is not disputed that if the finding of fact arrived at by the Court below are accepted, the appeal must far.. As already observed, there are no good grounds for interference with the decision of the Court below. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs.