JUDGMENT Plaintiff has come up in second appeal feeling aggrieved by the judgments and decrees of the Courts below directing his suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession over a piece of land to be dismissed. The two Courts below have found that not only the plaintiff has failed in proving his title to the suit property but also that the defendant has succeeded in proving his adverse possession over the suit property extending over the statutory period so as to extinguish the title of the plaintiff and vest the same in the defendant. This Court admitted the appeal for hearing parties on the following singular substantial question of law: -- "Whether in spite of the fact that the ingredients essential to constitute adverse possession in the eye of law have not been proved by any legal evidence, could the plaintiff be non-suited?" The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Courts below have found that the defendant had raised construction over the suit property at about 11 years before the institution of the suit and that finding fell short of proving adverse possession. The learned counsel is nut right. Both the Courts below have found the defendant having raised construction at about 11 years prior to the institution of the suit but they have also held the defendant to have been in possession of that suit property since much before the raising of the construction and the period did extend beyond 12 years of the date of the institution of the suit. The finding has been arrived at by appreciating the evidence. No misreading or non-reading of the evidence has been pointed out. Finding on question of title and possession is primirily of fact and hence not open to interference in second appeal, more so, when it has been concurrently arrived at (see: Kshitish Chandra v. Commissioner of Rachi AIR 1981 SC 707 , para 10 and Maniar Jsmail v. Maniar Fakruddin AIR 1989 SC 1509 ). The appeal is held to be devoid of any merit and is dismissed. Judgments and decree of the Courts below are affirmed. No order as to the costs of this appeal. Counsel's fee as per schedule, if certified.