A contract that is unconscionable or a catching bargain, or is procured by fraud, misrepresentation or undue influence, is unenforceable in a court of law.

( 1 ) THIS appeal by the 6th defendant is directed against the judgment of the subordinate Judge, Vijayawada, granting a decree against him along with the other defendants for the recovery of Rs. 10,845/- on the basis of a letter of guarantee executed on 31-1-1962 by him along with the defendant Nos. 2 and 5. It is averred in the plaint that on 5-7-1962, the 2nd defendant, for and on behalf of the 1st defendant-firm, of which the defendant Nos. 2 to 6 are the partners, borrowed from the plaintiff a banker and money-lender at vijayawada, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- under Exs. A-10 to A-12 hundies, payable by 3-10-1962, on the strength of the two letters on continuing guarantee exs. A-9 and A-1 executed by the defendant Nos. 2 to 5 on 30-10-1962 and the defendant Nos. 2, 5 and 6 on 31-1-1962 respectively and also executed another letter Ex. A-13 acknowledging the receipt of Rs. 10,000/- and agreeing to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the due date. The plaintiff had to pay the amount to the Indian Bank and take the hundies, as the difcndants failed to honour the same. There was no reply from the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 to the telegraphic notice Ex:a-2 issued by the plaintiff, but the 6th defendant has replied under Ex. A-3 denying his liability; and the suit is filed on 14-3-1963 against all the defendants for the recovery of Rs. 10,845/- as there was no reply from the appellant also for the suit notice Ex. A-4, dated 2-2-1963. The defendant Nos. 1,3,4, and 5 remained exparate and the 2nd defendant filed a memo on 19-8-1963 submitting to a decree. The appellant the only contesting defendant, filed his written statement contending inter alia that he is a resident of and co-owner of a rice mill at srikakulam and was the managing partner of Sri Subrahmanyeswara Rice mills New Contractors Company, Masulipatam, in which the defendant Nos. 2 and 5 have each one anna share,that he was not a partner of the 1st defendantfirm, that when he approached the plaintiff for a loan for his partnership business at Masulipatam, through the 2nd defendant, accompained by the 5th defendant, it was represented to him that it was the practice of the plaintiff to obtain a contemporaneous letter from all the parties admitting their liability to be surety for the loan borrowed, that himself and the defendant Nos. 2 and 5 who were present there, signed the unstamped English printed form ex. A-1 with blanks therein, on 31. 1-1962 and borrowed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- undcr the iundies Exs. B-4 and B-5, that Ex,a-1, which is in English unknown to him, was neither read over nor explained to him and that he was unaware of the terms and recitals but subscribed his signature believing the representations, that the amount borrowed under Exs. B-4 and B-5 had been discharged by him on 26-4-1962 and hence, he is not liable to the amount now sought to be reco- vered on the strength of Ex. A-1. The trial Court held that the defendant Nos. 2 to 5 are the partners of the 1st defendant-firm and the 6th defendant has no connection with it, that the hundies Exs. A-10 to A-12 are true and supported by consideration, that ex. A-1 was not vitiated by any fraud,coercion or misrepresentation as the same has been executed by the defendant Nos. 2, 5 and 6 with eyes wide open and in they must have known that it is the nature of a letter of continuing guarantee, and decreed the suit. Hence, this appeal. The points that arise for determination are: 1) Whether the appellant, ignorant of English intended knowingly to execute Ex. A-1 as a letter of continuing guarantee for the borrowals of the 2nd defendant? 2) whether the transaction under Ex. A-1 is vitiated by fraud, missrepresentation or undue influence? 3) whether the contract under Ex. A-1 is an unconseionable or catching bargain and cannot be enforced in a court of law? with regard to the first point, it has to be considered on whom the onus lies to prove the contents of Ex. A-1 being known to the appellant.