A businessman caught up in a legal fight over the right to a Scottish baronetcy says he is glad that judges have "finally" been asked to make a decision.

Accountant Murray Pringle, 74, of High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, and Simon Pringle, 56, who lives near Hastings, East Sussex, both lay claim to the baronetcy of Pringle of Stichill.

The Queen has asked senior judges to make decisions on the dispute under a piece of legislation dating back more than 150 years.

Seven judges have analysed evidence and legal argument at a two-day hearing of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London - in one of the most unusual disputes seen in a British court.

The judges, who are all Supreme Court justices, are due to return to court in January to analyse further legal argument from lawyers representing both men.

They are not expected to publish a ruling for some months.

Judges have been told that Charles II granted the baronetcy of Stichill, a village near Kelso, Roxburghshire, to Robert Pringle of Stichill - and the ''male heirs from his body'' - on January 5 1683.

The 10th Baronet, Sir Steuart Pringle - a retired Royal Marine commander who survived an IRA bomb attack - died in 2013 aged 84, judges have heard.

Now his son Simon, and Murray - Simon's second cousin - disagree over who should claim the title.

Lawyers for Murray Pringle say Simon should not become the 11th Baronet because there has been a ''break in the line of paternity''.

They say tests have shown that Sir Steuart's DNA ''did not match that of the Pringle lineage''.

Simon today said his father and mother - Lady Jacqueline Pringle, who died in 2012 - had hoped that the dispute would have been solved in their lifetimes.

And he said he was glad that judges had been asked for a ruling.

Lawyers for Murray Pringle have suggested that the problem arose following the death of the 8th Baronet, Sir Norman Pringle, in 1919.

They said Sir Norman and his wife Florence had three sons: Norman, Ronald - Murray's father - and James.

In 1920 Florence had made a formal 'Statutory Declaration saying Norman was the eldest son of the 8th Baronet and was entitled to succeed to the baronetcy.

But Murray is arguing that the 8th Baronet was not Norman's father and he claims that, as Ronald's son, he is the rightful successor to the baronetcy.

Lawyers for Simon Pringle are disputing Murray Pringle's claim to the title.

Simon today explained how his father had agreed to give a DNA sample to Murray for a "genealogy project".

Murray had then, in 2010, told Sir Steuart that he should "rightfully" be the baronet, said Simon.

"My father agreed to give a sample of his DNA out of kindness to a person he did not know to support what was presented as an innocent genealogy project," said Simon in a statement after today's hearing.

"Such kindness was typical of him.

"In 2010 the same person, who was Murray Pringle, wrote to my father that judging by the DNA sample he, Murray, and not my father should rightfully be the baronet of Stichill.

"Murray then urged my father to relinquish the baronetcy."

Simon added: "My father held the view that since a baronetcy is a gift from the Crown it was not for him to decide the question of who should or should not have it.

"He therefore forwarded all correspondence to, and sought guidance from, the appropriate Crown authorities.

"Because there was no ready answer, we have this case."

He went on: "It was distressing to my father, who died in 2013, and my mother, who died a year earlier, that the question was not answered during their lifetimes as they keenly wanted the story and its resolution to be shared with their friends.

"I am glad that this case finally makes that possible."

The jurisdiction of the Privy Council dates back hundreds of years.

Its judicial committee heard appeals from countries in the British Empire.

The committee - now normally made up of a panel of Supreme Court justices - still acts as a final court of appeal for Commonwealth countries which have no supreme court.

But the committee can also analyse other kinds of disputes.

And the Queen can refer ''any matter'' to the committee for ''consideration and report'' under section 4 of the 1833 Judicial Committee Act.

Officials said that legislation had been used to bring the Stichill dispute to court - after Murray laid claim to the title.

They said a baronetcy was a hereditary title granted by the Crown - and the Queen had asked the committee for an ''opinion'' as to who should be entered on the ''Official Roll of the Baronetage in respect of the Baronetcy of Stichill''.

The case has been analysed at the Supreme Court building in central London.