Is the original partition deed essential for an heir his share of the property, or will his replicate of the deed suffice?

My brother and I divided our ancestral property after the demise of our father. he kept the original of the division deed (in a Rs-60000 stamp paper, with half the cost shared by me), while I kept the replicate copy (in a Rs-100 stamp paper) of it, which the deed said had equal legal value and rights. The division deed also mentions specifically that the original is kept by my brother, and the replicate, by me, and that each shall use his document for any transactions. I am told by some realtors that when i sell my share of the property, if the buyer is buying it through a bank loan, apart from the replicate copy in my hands, the bank will insist on seeing the original deed too. I know that technically, the original deed document is common to all heirs (the cost of the deed also is shared by all heirs, as per convention), but my brother, being an unreasonable person, will not hand it over / produce it for any purpose of mine. I wanted to find out whether banks do insist on seeing the original document of the deed, in this scenario? (The ostensible reason quoted for this practice is: that I can obtain a loan on MY share of the property by pledging the original document, and the bank will want to make sure that that has not been done. How can I possibly take out a loan on MY share pf the property by pledging the original document which is held by my brother (as mentioned in the deed itself), and the deed says explicitly that the original is to be kept by my brother, and the replicate, by me, to be used for all legal and transaction purposes?) If this practice actually exists, is it not illogical and illegal? I am told that a buyer with ready funds will not have an issue, but a buyer who comes through a bank loan will face this issue. I prefer buyers through bank loans, because that way, I will have accounted money which can be deposited in a bank. Can anyone advise me.