The main legal point established in the judgment is that the concept of a temple in Kerala is not limited to the presence of an idol, and historical and philosophical aspects of temple worship are considered in determining the status of temple premises.

1. Whether the land involved in the proceedings before the Land Tribunal would constitute premises of a Temple, and consequently would be exempt under S.3(x) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act was the controversy which arose before the authorities below. According to the Land Tribunal and the Appellate Authority, the area came within the ambit of temple premises. The view is challenged in revision.

2. The description of the property even in the records is 'Ambala Paramba' meaning temple premises. The features of the temple and the properties as borne put by the records including a very elaborate report of the Advocate Commissioner would fully justify the view taken by the authorities below. The sacrificial stone (that would be the literal translation of 'Balikallu'), Sastha Temple in close proximity, temple well, the basement of Kuthambalam, compound wall, Astabalikallus, the sites for offering devotion like Namaskaramandapa, the daily lighting (Nithya Vilakku), and other adjuncts and appurtenance would add up to all that is attributed to a Kerala Temple. Due to many changes in the social and economical field, the temples and families which own them have become crisis-ridden financially, Crumbling walls. gloomy corridors, ill-lit lamps, and neglected routines, present the tragic sight of such-temples. Some little support is forthcoming from the spontaneous reaction of the devotees of the locality. Quite often, they provide an ad hoc administration and conduct their early festivals. The adversities which have befallen these religious institutions, had not deprived them of the status of a temple, and the premises, the position of temple sites. I had occasion to consider some attributes of the 'temple' in the light of earlier judgments in OP 5720 of 1986-E. Judged by these principles laid down therein, I have no hesitation to hold that there was a temple and the land in the proceedings before the authorities below were temple premises.

3. The revision petitioner would suggest that there was no idol inside this temple. Without an idol, could there be a temple at all? was the query. These who have a peep into the history of Kerala for the last three centuries cannot fail to notice that phenomenon. Many of the families had left their abode and the places of worship, when faced with serious threat to their life, and to all that was cherishable in life. Those places of worship subjected to such assaults but have managed to survive them, would certainly be temples, even if some portion be damaged or some object of worship be missing. Even from the subtle philosophical point of view, the sublimest concept of oneness with the God would not insist on a symbolic stone as an essential attribute of the place to pray. It is useful to remember in this context that Kerala is a place where a saint social revolutionary installed a mirror as the deity or as a substitute thereof in a prominent temple frequented by large number of worshippers. It is impossible, in these circumstances, to take a narrow or pedantic view of the temple premises. The view taken by the authorities below calls for no interference by the revisional court. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.