Judgment : These three revisions arise under identical facts and between the same parties. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order. One Sri Shafiuddin Babu Khan was the owner of very large extent of property at Tilak Road, Hyderabad. Through two sale deeds, dated 27.08.1988, he sold 2952 and 2950 square yards respectively in favour of M/s.Asrani Inns & Resorts Private Limited, sole respondent herein, and 11 of its shareholders. Through another sale deed, dated 31.07.1997, he sold further extent of 915 square yards to the same party. The sale deeds were registered in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Moajamjahi Market, Hyderabad, the 2nd petitioner herein. On 20.12.2002, 11 shareholders, who figured as co-purchasers in the sale deeds, executed separate release deeds (for short 'the documents') in favour of the respondent stating that they figured as benami in the sale deeds and they intend to relinquish their rights, if any, in favour of the respondent. In each of the documents, they indicated the value at Rs.1,00,000/-and paid the stamp duty of Rs.3,000/- apart from registration fee. They invoked Article 46(B) to Schedule IA (henceforth, mention of Article, shall include the Schedule I-A also) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The 2nd petitioner entertained a doubt as to the adequacy of stamp duty and registration charges paid on the documents. Exercising powers under Article 47(A) to Schedule I-A of the Act, he referred the matter to the 1st petitioner. The 1st Petitioner issued notices to the respondent and the executants of the documents, expressing the view that the stamp duty is payable under Article 46(A) and requiring them to explain. The respondent and its shareholders submitted explanation stating that the entire consideration for the sale transaction was paid by the respondent alone and since 11 shareholders figured as benami, it is only Article 46(B) that gets attracted. Explanation was not accepted and the 1st petitioner passed individual orders, dated 28.07.2004, requiring the respondent and other executants of the documents to pay the stamp duty under Article 46(A). The three orders passed by the 1st petitioner were challenged before the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad by filing C.M.A.Nos.215, 216, 217 of 2007. Through separate orders, dated 31.07.2006, the lower appellate Court has set aside the orders passed by the 1st petitioner and upheld the contention of the respondent. The said orders are challenged in these three revisions. The three orders passed by the 1st petitioner were challenged before the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad by filing C.M.A.Nos.215, 216, 217 of 2007. Through separate orders, dated 31.07.2006, the lower appellate Court has set aside the orders passed by the 1st petitioner and upheld the contention of the respondent. The said orders are challenged in these three revisions. Sri T.Ramulu, learned Government Pleader for Arbitration appearing for the petitioners, submits that the executants of the release deed figured independently as purchasers in the sale deeds, though along with the sole respondent herein, and it is clear that each of the purchasers have independent right vis--vis the property. He submits that the very fact that the release deed was executed by as many as 11 persons who figured as purchasers in the sale deed, discloses that there existed valuable rights in them and they intended to transfer their rights in favour of the respondent and thereby, the documents answer the description of a 'release deed' as mentioned under Article 46(A). He further submits that the executants of the documents failed to prove that the entire consideration for the transaction was paid by the sole respondent. Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the executants were none other than the shareholders of the respondent and it was only for the sake of convenience, that they have been roped in as purchasers in the sale deeds. He submits that the entire consideration was paid by the respondent alone and this fact was brought to the notice of the 1st petitioner in the course of enquiry under Article 47(A). Learned Senior Counsel submits that no independent sale or other conveyance has taken place, and the factum of the executants figuring benami in the sale deeds, was disclosed. As many as three sale deeds were executed by Sri Shafiuddin Babu Khan in favour of the respondent in respect of about 6800 square yards of land. No problem as such has arisen when the sale deeds were registered. Fairly, after a long time, 11 persons, who figured as purchasers along with the respondent in the sale deeds, wanted to release themselves from the transactions. They described themselves as benami and executed three documents on 27.08.1988 and 31.07.1997 and presented the same for registration before the 2nd petitioner. Fairly, after a long time, 11 persons, who figured as purchasers along with the respondent in the sale deeds, wanted to release themselves from the transactions. They described themselves as benami and executed three documents on 27.08.1988 and 31.07.1997 and presented the same for registration before the 2nd petitioner. Schedule I-A of the Act maintains a clear distinction between the release deeds simplicitor, on the one hand, and the deeds evidencing release of benami right, on the other. The former is dealt with under Article 46(A) and the latter under Article 46(B). There is substantial difference as to the quantum of stamp duty to be paid on the documents covered by these respective Articles. While the former attracts stamp duty at a particular rate on the market value of the property, the latter leaves it open to the parties to stipulate the value and provides levy of 3% stamp duty thereon. Obviously on account of substantial difference, the 2nd petitioner entertained a doubt as to the adequacy of the stamp duty paid on the documents under Article 46(B) and referred the matter to the 1st petitioner. The 1st Petitioner took the prima facie view that the documents are undervalued and accordingly, issued notice, under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules 1975, on 26.02.2004. In reply thereto, the respondent stated that the entire consideration to the sale transaction was paid by it and the executants of the release deed figured only as benami. It was indeed open for the 1st petitioner to disprove the claim of the respondent or the executants that the entire consideration was paid by the respondent alone. The sale deeds, particulars of the negotiable instruments through which consideration was paid, were furnished. In case it emerged that the executants individually or collectively have paid any portion of the consideration, it would have been competent for the 1st petitioner to record a finding to the contrary. No such effort was made. He concentrated mostly upon the value of the property, its location and the activities that are undertaken upon it. Those aspects are totally alien to the adjudication of the question as to whether a document falls under Article 46(A) or 46 (B). An important differentiating factor between the documents covered by Article 46(A) on the one hand and Article 46(B) on the other, is the element of benami. Those aspects are totally alien to the adjudication of the question as to whether a document falls under Article 46(A) or 46 (B). An important differentiating factor between the documents covered by Article 46(A) on the one hand and Article 46(B) on the other, is the element of benami. As is evident from the definition of 'benami transaction' under the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988, a transaction, assumes that character in case the consideration for the sale was paid by a person, other than the one who figured as purchaser. In a given case, the party, who figured as the purchaser may not have paid anything and the entire consideration is paid by a stranger. There may also be instances where more persons than one figure as purchasers and only one or few of them have paid the consideration and others did not pay any amount at all. Even in the second category of cases, the transaction is prone to be treated as benami to the extent they relate to the persons, who figure as purchasers, but did not pay the consideration. The case on hand falls into that category, if the relevant facts are proved. In clear and categorical terms, it was represented before the 1st petitioner, in reply to a notice that the entire sale consideration was paid by the respondent and that 11 persons, who executed the release deeds, did not share the burden at all. As long as that plea stood not contradicted, the transaction, to the extent of those persons, is invariably, benami in nature. That fact is sufficient to attract Article 46(B). The lower appellate Court has taken the correct view of the matter and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders under revision. Hence, the civil revision petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous petitions filed in these civil revision petitions also shall stand disposed of.