JUDGMENT Pankaj Naqvi,J.: - Heard Sri Sumit Daga, learned counsel for appellant on the admission of appeal. 2. This second appeal has been preferred by plaintiff, challenging the judgments and decree of the courts below, whereby suit for recovery of money, filed by her, has been dismissed. 3. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred as they were described in trial court, i.e. as plaintiff / defendant, unless specified otherwise. 4. A suit for recovery for money was filed alleging that defendant is closely related to plaintiff and that in order to carry out repairs of her car, defendant was in need of Rs.60,000/-, which was advanced by plaintiff against a promissory note alleged to have been signed by defendant under which defendant was obliged to return the said amount along with interest @ 6 % per month. It is alleged that as said amount was not repaid, plaintiff-appellant served a notice of demand and thereafter instituted the present suit. The suit was resisted by defendant on the ground that there existed no family relationship between the two as they belonged to two different castes. It was further alleged that defendant had neither taken alleged advance from the plaintiff nor did she ever possess any car with registration no. USV-9191. It was further stated that she is absolutely illiterate. 5. The plaintiff in support of her case examined herself as PW-1, PW-2 Bhagwan Das, PW-3 Kailash Chand and PW-4 Vishwajeet Singh. Similarly, defendant examined herself as DW-1, DW-2 Rajni Devi and DW-3 Munish. 6. Both the courts held that there was interpolation on the promissory note (paper no. 9-ka). The Court further found that there was material contradiction between the version set forth in the notice of demand dated 1.1.2002 (paper no. 10-ga), wherein it was alleged that the said amount was to form a part of the sale consideration for the car and the said amount was advanced on 2.5.2001 as earnest. But, the said version was in conflict with the version set forth in the plaint, wherein it was alleged that the amount was advanced for carrying out repairs of the car. Thus, from the aforesaid evidence, it was not established that Rs.60,000/- was ever advanced by plaintiff-appellant to defendant-respondent. But, the said version was in conflict with the version set forth in the plaint, wherein it was alleged that the amount was advanced for carrying out repairs of the car. Thus, from the aforesaid evidence, it was not established that Rs.60,000/- was ever advanced by plaintiff-appellant to defendant-respondent. The Courts further found that defendant is an illiterate lady belonging to the Valmiki Community (Scavenging Community), who is alleged to have stated that her blank signatures appear to have been taken while she was working as sweeper in the Cantonment Board, Meerut from where she is alleged to have attained superannuation on 30.6.2006. The plaintiff-appellant could not give any satisfactory explanation as regards interpolation on the pronote receipt. The Court further found that in case the alleged car, which was brought before plaintiff for sale by mechanic, was found to be not to the satisfaction of plaintiff so as to conclude a sale transaction, then it was always open for her to either bring the alleged mechanic in the witness box or to have produced evidence from R.T.O. concerned as regardsownership of ambassador vehicle bearing registration no. USV-9191 in the name of defendant. As plaintiff-appellant failed to discharge the said burden and the pronote receipt containing serious interpolation, claim of plaintiff-appellant was rightly dismissed by both the courts. 7. Learned counsel for appellant could not demonstrate any perversity in the impugned judgment. 8. After hearing learned counsel for appellant, the Court finds that findings recorded, are based on relevant and admissible evidence to which no perversity could be attributed. No substantial questions of law arises. 9. The appeal is dismissed at the admission stage with costs.