Mr. Natesan, learned Counsel for the appellants, contends that in the instant case, the decision, dated September 2, 1950, of the Settlement Officer fell within the second category of cases pointed out in Desika Charyulu 's case (supra) which could be challenged in the civil court, because, firstly, Kadakalla village was not an "inam village" as the, ,grant was not of the whole village, and the Settlement Officer had grievously erred in assuming it to be so; secondly, as soon as the Settlement Officer reached the finding that the village was not an "inam estate" within the then extant definition in section 2(7) of the Abolition Act, he became functus officio and had no further jurisdiction under section 9(1) to proceed with the enquiry and hold that it was an estate" under section 3(2)(d) of the Estates Land Act, 1908.