What is the ruling on a man testifying to something he did not have sufficient knowledge of, then it became clear to him that his testimony was correct according to two just witnesses, but he is unable to withdraw it from the court due to his inability to pay the fees?

If a man testifies to what he does not know, he has committed a grave sin, and he must repent by abandoning the sin, feeling remorse, resolving not to return to it, and restoring rights to their owners. However, if he testifies to what he knows from valid sources, such as testifying to ownership of a building based on his observation of the one managing the property, then his testimony is valid. The validity or invalidity of a testimony cannot be determined except by knowing the details.